The former chief prosecutor for Arizona’s largest county, who has been disbarred for bringing baseless lawsuits and prosecutions against political enemies of the county’s high-profile sheriff, is not entitled to absolute immunity from a civil rights suit by one of his targets, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

If the allegations of Donald Stapley Jr.’s complaint are true, Judge William Fletcher wrote, the civil suit filed by Andrew Thomas against Stapley under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act “was not ‘analogous’ to a criminal prosecution,” but “was essentially a harassing public-relations ploy.”

Thomas was the elected Maricopa County attorney from 2005 to 2010, when he resigned to run for state attorney general. He lost that race, and last year was disbarred by the state Supreme Court for having “out­rageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law” by bringing unfounded and malicious criminal and civil charges against political opponents, including judges and county supervisors.

He announced months ago that he is going to run for governor next year.

Thomas is a longtime ally of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed “Toughest Sheriff in America.”

Stapley is a former county supervisor, who criticized Arpaio and Thomas on numerous occasions regarding what he said was extravagant and unnecessary spending. Among other things, he criticized Thomas’ repeated use of expensive outside counsel, including Thomas’ former law firm.

Retaliation Alleged

In seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Arizona law, Stapley claims that the 2009 RICO suit was brought to retaliate for that criticism, as well as for cuts to Arpaio’s and Thomas’ budgets.

The RICO suit named Arpaio and Thomas as plaintiffs and Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon—a former deputy county attorney who was disbarred along with Thomas—as counsel. They named 14 defendants, among them county board members and state court judges.

In an almost unprecedented turn of events and somewhat ironically, a local official in the State of California who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offenses is now accused of criminal conduct.

Shown above is Mr. Jeff Reisig — an alleged “accomplice” to both a criminal and civil conspiracy who cooperated, jointly and severally, in the commission of two or more RICO activities (image: courtesy photo)

Court documents filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that the highly controversial District Attorney of Yolo County Jeff Reisig is accused of violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

RICO is a federal law that authorizes a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be held civilly liable for the crimes that they ordered others to commit or which they assisted in committing.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar Daniel Dydzak, alleges that Jeff Reisig and his deputies/investigators engaged in an “unlawful search and seizure” and that Mr. Reisig and State Bar of California employee Tom Layton (who according to sources is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira) shared with third parties materials obtained during the search.

The suit further alleges that Reisig conspired to participate in a RICO enterprise, as well as participated in the commission of two or more racketeering activities acting as “accomplice.”

Previously, in response to a request by The Leslie Brodie Report (“TLR”), Dr. Joseph Zernik provided a short review of the history of the corruption in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, highlighting the Iran-Contra Scandal, the Rampart Scandal, and corruption within U.S. District Court in Los Angeles as key causes of the corruption.

Now, TLR mulls asking Dr. Zernik to opine on the reason many of the key players in said corruption happened to be members of the Jewish faith. For example:

Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — President & CEO of Bet Tzedek of Los Angeles. Former senior executive and chief legal officer at Countrywide Financial Corporation. A RICO suit alleges that Samuels was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.

Judge Alex Kozinski — trail of grave misconduct include a) supporter of “The Malek Manual” – whereas concerned citizens who follow the plight of American whistleblowers in exposing fraud, corruption, incompetence, waste and abuse usually find themselves on the receiving end of wanton investigations, malicious prosecutions and warrantless surveillance. b) appointment of Rory Little as special prosecutor in matter of In Re Girardi despite clear conflict of interest. c) obstruction of justice in refusing to process complaint against Judge Morrison England d) “judge shopping” in matters relating to whistleblower Dan Dydzak.

Henry Weinstein of UC Irvine School of Law / Voice of OC. Mr. Weisntein is the former legal affairs reporter for the L.A. Times. Part of “Phase 1” of CaliforniaALL financial scheme alongside UC Irvine Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Voice of OC, Cal Bar executive director Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, and former Voice of OC directors Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan (operator of Tony West and Chris Young,; attorney and brain behind CaliforniaALL scheme, mastermind behind California Democratic Party.) Additionally, Weisntein part of conspiracy between Voice of OC, UC Irvine Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Voice of OC, Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, former Voice of OC directors James Brosnahan and Thomas Girardi and others to press false criminal charges against Yolo County-based Rabbi who exposed CaliforniaALL financial scheme for purposes of intimidation and the execution of search warrant whereas all CaliforniaALL materials were confiscated by eight armed Yolo DA investigators. For more about Henry Weinstein , please see HERE

David and Cynthia Pasternak of Pasternak Pasternak & Patton. Despite the fact that David Pasternak has been sued countless times (including twice for being an alleged “Racketeer”), The Leslie Brodie Report (“TLR”) urges the readers to exercise extreme caution and not jump to conclusions regarding misconduct by Cynthia and David Pasternak. In addition, to date, TLR hasn’t been made privy to any real evidence whatsoever which would tend to show Pasternaks engaged in any acts of misconduct. Nevertheless, Mr. Pasternak’s association with Bet Tzedek, as well as the appearance that he is part of the Girardi/George Syndicate is a source of concern. In connection with some of Bet Tzedek’s alleged racketeering activities, a suit maintained that Sandor Samuels — CEO and President of Bet Tzedek and former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes. The suit also asserted that other individuals engaged in racketeering activities, including David Pasternak — a Los-Angeles based “receiver,” as well as an officer of both Bet Tzedek and the Chancery Club — who allegedly used Bet Tzedek as forum to meet, collude, and otherwise bribe various judges and lawyers for the purpose of further appointing Pasternak as “receiver.”

Laura and Robert Chick of Lawyers’ Mutual Insurance Company. Confirmed shyster Laura Chick has a “Jeannine English” problem, to wit, 1. Part of CaliforniaALL financial scheme (Chick only part of Obama for America while member of California Bar Board of Governors (“BOG”)) 2. Member of BOG to primarily serve financial interest of herself, her husband, and that of Lawyers’ Mutual Insurance Company – NOT to “protect the public” — i.e. ensure clients of California Lawyers’ Mutual Insurance Company NOT disciplined by the State Bar of California 3. Jeannine English disquieting ties to Gwen Moore similar to Chick’s disquieting ties to Karen Bass. | Ongoing civil inquiry seeks to implicate Chick in matters relating to misuse of $85 billion of Federal Recovery Act funding.

Ronald and Eric George. Disquieting ties to Tom Girardi, Girardi Syndicate, Howard Rice, Bet Tzedek, Alen Rothenberg, 1st. Century Bank. Eric George part of Mel Gibson extortion scheme.Charachteristics of MO: rely heavily on misuse of Asians, misuse of Tom Layton, vindictive, radioactive, my way or the highway. High on Ronald Goerge’s “Hit List” are: Judge David Lampe, Judge Maryanne Gillard, Yolo County-based Rabbi, Michael Paul, Leslie Brodie, Judicial Council Watcher, Peter Dion-Kindem and Dan Dydzak. Separately, when examining the circumstances surrounding the California Supreme Court Historical Society (“CSCHS”) and discovering the presence of PG&E; PG&E’s Ophelia Basgal of CaliforniaALL, who served as the “Treasurer” of CSCHS; Amy Margolin, and private judge Joseph Grodin, whose legal opinion Bill Lockyer and Jerry Brown relied upon in deciding to dismiss the case against PG&E, it is difficult not to question whether any misconduct has taken place in this setting given the prior history between Howard Rice and PG&E. Adding fuel to the fire is the recent discovery that CSCHS — while headed by the embattled Ronald George — seeks financial donations, some of which it later forwarded to an entity known as the Institute of Governmental Studies (“IGS”), where Eric George (son of Ronald George) serves as a director. Previously, a RICO suit alleged that Ronald George unlawfully transferred funds from entities that were under his control (such as the California Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) intended for the CCMS computer system) into various accounts that were specifically maintained in Alan Rothenberg’s bank — 1st Century, a bank which Eric George owns in part. Said funds, as the suit alleged, were later embezzled. As part of maintaining the scheme, the suit alleges, AOC employees Ronald Overholt and William Vickery were bestowed with various gifts, trips, kickbacks, bribes, excessive salaries, and the like. Similarly, and also as part of guarding the scheme, the suit alleges that defendants, at times, resorted to utilizing the services of Tom Layton — a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff/Senior State Bar of California investigator — to “illegally gather detrimental dirt” on various individuals who would oppose and/or object to the existence of said arrangements. According to sources, Tom Layton is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme that the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira.

John Roos and Mark Parnes of Wilson Sonsini. Both Roos and Parnes part of CaliforniaALL financial scheme and with close ties to OBAMA FOR AMERICA. Relatively speaking, both are typical of Sonsini Syndicate’s MO, to wit, non-radioactive, attitude of live and let live, resourceful, and highly effective operatives. Similar to Ron Olson (and unlike Dave Rosenberg) favorite MO – stealth, stay out of limelight.

David, Justice Kay and Matt Werdegar. RICO defendant David Werdegar is the former Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Aging and husband of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (aka Kay Mickle). Prior to the commencement of the RICO action, David Werdegar abruptly quit his position following reports on TLR of alleged improprieties involving himself, his wife, and his son Matt Werdegar – a partner at the litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest, headed by controversial litigator John Keker. Matt also part of Three-Card-Monte conspiracy by Keker & Van Nest to remove profile of degenerate associate Chris Young (of CaliforniaALL, to wit, Obama for America, Mark Friedman-Alison Turner-Kevin Johnson’s Mayoral Campaign, USDOJ’s Tony West, White-House Special Counsel Jeff Bleich) from firm’s web site. (images and narrative: courtesy)

Professional career

Federal judicial service

Fletcher was nominated twice by former PresidentBill Clinton, his Rhodes Scholar classmate at Oxford, for a seat on the Ninth Circuit vacated by William Albert Norris in April 1995, and January 1997.[2] His first appointment was never voted on by the senate, but his second nomination was confirmed in a 57-41 vote on October 8, 1998 and received his commission on October 9.[2]

You may have heard of the Malek Manual, which was created during the Nixon administration and filled with underhanded techniques, designed to establish a politically loyal government workforce. Concerned citizens who follow the plight of American whistleblowers are familiar with the common modus operandi utilized against outspoken patriots by federal, state and local agencies. In retaliation for exposing fraud, corruption, incompetence, waste and abuse, truth-tellers usually find themselves on the receiving end of wanton investigations, malicious prosecutions and warrantless surveillance. The Malek Manual outlined conniving strategies for eliminating whistleblowers from government employment by exploiting legal loopholes, teaching agency heads how to “skirt around the adverse action proceedings” (such as the EEOC, the MSPB and the Federal Circuit), “to remove undesirable employees from their positions.” (The President and the Executive Branch, by Joel D. Aberbach. UCLA Center for American Politics and Public Policy Occasional Paper Series 9 1-9.)

The sobriquet most often used to describe Fred Malek was “hatchet man”, because of his ruthlessness in ousting those deemed to be disloyal. Malek’s techniques included mandatory transfers and investigations against whistleblowers and outspoken critics of the establishment. For example, he reportedly ordered the FBI to conduct an investigation of a former CBS correspondent and Nixon critic Daniel Schorr, who was placed on the “Enemy List”.

Fred Malek was infamously ordered by Nixon to count the Jews in high-ranking government positions. Malek completed this blatantly anti-Semitic assignment, compiling a list of government employees whom he believed to be Jewish. Shortly thereafter, these senior officials were transferred to other locations and less prominent, dead-end positions.

In spite of his dastardly activities, after leaving the White House, Fred Malek became the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 1982 Fred Malek was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to head the U.S. Postal Service. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee refused to act on his nomination, because Senators reportedly felt that Malek had made conflicting statements under oath regarding his role in the “program”. Outraged committee didn’t hold back its disgust. Then-Senator John Danforth (R-Mo.) said, in relevant part, “… whether it was legal or illegal . . . it was wrong, just plain wrong… you admit that it was true, you admit that it was wrong . . . you regret it and you will never do it again. . . . Am I wrong or right?” Fred Malek responded, “You are absolutely right, senator.” Senator David Pryor (D-Ark.) asked, “Did it ever occur to you that what you were doing was wrong or immoral?” Malek replied, “Yes, sir, it did.”

Another disgusting vignette of Malek’s character was revealed when police arrested five men after locating a blood-spattered car near the park entrance in Peoria, Illinois. After giving conflicting stories, the men finally admitted that they “caught a dog and were barbecuing it.” The perpetrators caught, skinned and gutted a dog and barbecued it on a spit. One of them was Fred Malek.

His legacy continued when the 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted administrative cease-and-desist proceedings against Malek, his company, Thayer Capital Partners and their affiliates. The SEC charged that pension investments in Malek’s company were used to reward a political supporter, William DiBella, former majority leader of the Connecticut Senate. Malek’s company was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $150,000, and he was personally ordered to pay a civil penalty of $100,000.

Fred Malek’s career in government and politics didn’t end after his activities were exposed. He is the former President of Marriott Hotels and Northwest Airlines and has served as an advisor to four U.S. Presidents.

In 2010, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) called Malek “a man of high principle” who “has proved many times over the years his loyalty to the highest principles of freedom, human rights and international tolerance.”

As Fred Malek goes on with his political and financial exploits, the Malek Manual also continues its dark influence. It is said to be passed on to heads of government service upon the commencement of their tenure. Former head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Special Counsel Alex Kozinski, kept a copy of the Malek Manual on his desk. Kozinski reportedly used techniques outlined in the document (such as transfers, investigations and harassment) to purge the professional civil service experts from the OSC staff. They were replaced with obedient minions who viewed whistleblowers as crazy, disloyal troublemakers.

While serving as the head of the OSC, Alex Kozinski taught courses to federal managers about firing whistleblowers without getting caught by OSC investigators. For example, he tutored Secretary Watt how to get rid of a whistleblowing coal mine inspector from the Department of Interior, Jack Spadaro. Alex Kozinski’s abuses were the major catalyst for passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) of 1989, and he was forced to resign. A few years later, 43 Senators voted against his confirmation for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after Senator Levin’s intensive investigation of Kozinski’s tenure as the OSC’s Special Counsel. In spite of the controversy surrounding his dubious OSC performance, Kozinski became the Chief Judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Techniques outlined in the Malek Manual are still being implemented within government agencies, with virtual impunity.

In the meantime, Ridge and Malek want everyone to concentrate on the pending immigration “reform” they’re pushing through the American Action Forum. This self-described “business-linked advocacy group” wants to rewrite the law to largely do away with the immigration issue altogether. This millionaire-headed organization calls itself a “public charity” and solicits donations, as they would prefer that someone else pay for their activities. Their website features such priceless research as the comparison between the costs of the 2013 sequester and the amount of money Americans spent on beer in 2011.

Some of the Board members of the AAF include Fred Malek, Senator Norm Coleman, James Barksdale of the Barksdale Management Corporation, Governor Jeb Bush, Elaine Chao (24th Secretary of Labor), Wendy Grubbs (Global Government Affairs for Citigroup), Tom Ridge and Bob Steel (former President and CEO of Wachovia).

Ridge is not the only government official, who managed to parlay his former career into a number of lucrative business ventures, including Ridge Global. Homeland security is big business, with an estimated $200 billion in annual revenues. Michael Chertoff founded the Chertoff Group, former Attorney General John Ashcroft started the Ashcroft Group, former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolf Guiliani hatched Guiliani Group.

Ronald and Eric George. Disquieting ties to Tom Girardi, Girardi Syndicate, Howard Rice, Bet Tzedek, Alen Rothenberg, 1st. Century Bank. Eric George part of Mel Gibson extortion scheme.Charachteristics of MO: rely heavily on misuse of Asians, misuse of Tom Layton, vindictive, radioactive, my way or the highway. High on Ronald Goerge’s “Hit List” are: Judge David Lampe, Judge Maryanne Gillard, Yolo County-based Rabbi, Michael Paul, Leslie Brodie, Judicial Council Watcher, Peter Dion-Kindem and Dan Dydzak. Separately, when examining the circumstances surrounding the California Supreme Court Historical Society (“CSCHS”) and discovering the presence of PG&E; PG&E’s Ophelia Basgal of CaliforniaALL, who served as the “Treasurer” of CSCHS; Amy Margolin, and private judge Joseph Grodin, whose legal opinion Bill Lockyer and Jerry Brown relied upon in deciding to dismiss the case against PG&E, it is difficult not to question whether any misconduct has taken place in this setting given the prior history between Howard Rice and PG&E. Adding fuel to the fire is the recent discovery that CSCHS — while headed by the embattled Ronald George — seeks financial donations, some of which it later forwarded to an entity known as the Institute of Governmental Studies (“IGS”), where Eric George (son of Ronald George) serves as a director. Previously, a RICO suit alleged that Ronald George unlawfully transferred funds from entities that were under his control (such as the California Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) intended for the CCMS computer system) into various accounts that were specifically maintained in Alan Rothenberg’s bank — 1st Century, a bank which Eric George owns in part. Said funds, as the suit alleged, were later embezzled. As part of maintaining the scheme, the suit alleges, AOC employees Ronald Overholt and William Vickery were bestowed with various gifts, trips, kickbacks, bribes, excessive salaries, and the like. Similarly, and also as part of guarding the scheme, the suit alleges that defendants, at times, resorted to utilizing the services of Tom Layton — a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff/Senior State Bar of California investigator — to “illegally gather detrimental dirt” on various individuals who would oppose and/or object to the existence of said arrangements. According to sources, Tom Layton is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme that the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira.

David and Cynthia Pasternak of Pasternak Pasternak & Patton. Despite the fact that David Pasternak has been sued countless times (including twice for being an alleged “Racketeer”), The Leslie Brodie Report (“TLR”) urges the readers to exercise extreme caution and not jump to conclusions regarding misconduct by Cynthia and David Pasternak. In addition, to date, TLR hasn’t been made privy to any real evidence whatsoever which would tend to show Pasternaks engaged in any acts of misconduct. Nevertheless, Mr. Pasternak’s association with Bet Tzedek, as well as the appearance that he is part of the Girardi/George Syndicate is a source of concern. In connection with some of Bet Tzedek’s alleged racketeering activities, a RICO suit by Dan Dydzak maintained that Sandor Samuels — CEO and President of Bet Tzedek and former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes. The suit also asserted that other individuals engaged in racketeering activities, including David Pasternak — a Los-Angeles based “receiver,” as well as an officer of both Bet Tzedek and the Chancery Club — who allegedly used Bet Tzedek as forum to meet, collude, and otherwise bribe various judges and lawyers for the purpose of further appointing Pasternak as “receiver.”

David, Justice Kay and Matt Werdegar. RICO defendant David Werdegar is the former Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Aging and husband of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (aka Kay Mickle). Prior to the commencement of the RICO action by Dan Dydzak, David Werdegar abruptly quit his position following reports on TLR of alleged improprieties involving himself, his wife, and his son Matt Werdegar – a partner at the litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest, headed by controversial litigator John Keker. Matt also part of Three-Card-Monte conspiracy by Keker & Van Nest to remove profile of degenerate associate Chris Young (of CaliforniaALL, to wit, Obama for America, Mark Friedman-Alison Turner-Kevin Johnson’s Mayoral Campaign, USDOJ’s Tony West, White-House Special Counsel Jeff Bleich) from firm’s web site. (images and narrative: courtesy)

Yolo County is currently seeking members for the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. Nineteen citizens, selected by an interview and random draw, comprise this arm of the judicial system. It is a watchdog organization whose civil job is to investigate corruption, malfeasance, or simply inefficiency in the agencies and offices in its jurisdiction that receive public funds. Are local agencies doing their job? Are they following the rules? Problems are identified on the basis of complaints submitted from the public or from investigations initiated by the Grand Jury itself.
Applicants must be citizens, age 18-years or older, Yolo County residents for at least a year, have a sufficient knowledge of English, be of sound judgment and fair character, with no felony or malfeasance in office convictions. After being interviewed by a Superior Court Judge and the Jury Commissioner, the applicants’ names are entered into a random draw. Nineteen are selected for the Grand Jury, with the remaining applicants as official alternates. Jurors serve for a term of one year, with a possibility of carryover to the next year for five jurors at the courts’ discretion.

Unlike the usual jury for a Court case, the Grand Jury is a more active body. It does its own investigations, including scheduling, data analysis, interviews, oversight visits, and writing reports. The main product of its activity is a public report issued at the end of its term in June. It can investigate any person, agency, or office in local government (city, county, special districts). However, the Grand Jury can neither prosecute nor punish. There is no direct staff support. The work is done by the nineteen members, although they can call on the designated Grand Jury Judge, County Counsel, District Attorney, and the State Attorney General for advice. In addition, a statewide organization (California Grand Juror’s Association) comprised of current and former grand jury members, provides education, training, and general support (see website at http://cgja.org/).

In Yolo County, the jurors also serve as a criminal Grand Jury. The District Attorney may request the Grand Jury to return an indictment – a formal accusation leading to criminal trial. An indictment hearing is an alternative to a preliminary hearing in Superior Court. A key difference is that the Grand Jury hearing is secret. The DA may choose this alternative in order to protect witnesses or the accused, and to get a sense of the strength of a case from a community perspective.

Why serve? You may be able to bring to the jury a needed perspective based on your age or your particular background. Meetings are arranged to accommodate the schedules of people with work and family commitments. A strong Grand Jury is one that is truly representative of Yolo County’s diversity. You will learn much about local government, get an inside view of the criminal justice system, work with fellow jurors of different backgrounds, and learn about group processes and negotiation with colleagues holding different perspectives. The Grand Jury work requires a significant time requirement and can be tedious but a Grand Jury that is able to establish clear goals and procedures early on will be successful and personally gratifying.

If not a bother, will it be possible for you to please delete my prior comment from this column. The comment contains inaccurate and incomplete information. For example, although yesterday I believed Barbara Sommer was the president of Yolo County Grand Jury, upon further research I discovered an error. Namely, that she is actually the President of Yolo Chapter California Grand Jurors’ Association. She did serve as grand juror/foreperson from 2008-2010.

Also, upon reflection, my comment of yesterday may create the wrong impression in the mind of your readers that I contacted the District Attorney of Yolo County for the sole purpose of reporting a crime by Judge David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, and Barbara Sommer.

In fact, the Yolo DA was primarily contacted to simply alert him of my plan to seek information directly from Lea Rosenberg and/or David Rosenberg due to their extensive (and in my opinion — suspicious) involvement with various non-profits as not to run afoul of rules pertaining to ex-parte communications.

As you know from reading parts of Dydzak’s lawsuit, after I unearthed various schemes including, for example, by Judicial Council / Voice of OC members Joe Dunn and Thomas Girardi (i.e. CaliforniaALL ), and after I reported Voice of OC to the IRS, members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors (i.e. Joe Dunn, Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest — colleague of Chris Young who was a behind the scene actor of CaliforniaALL) pressed criminal charges against me with the Yolo DA “on behalf” of the entire “State Bar of California”

Since I strongly suspect Judicial Council members Mark Robinson (also part of CaliforniaALL scheme in his capacity as director of UC Irvine Foundation – where Joe Dunn serves as Chairman of the Audit Committee, and where CaliforniaALL forwarded all funds — including funds obtained from the California Bar Foundation), Tani Cantil-Sakauye (friend of Ruthe Ashley — CaliforniaALL executive director), and David Rosenberg are also somehow involved in provoking the Yolo DA , I begun to examine the background of David Rosenberg .

13-03-11 Dydzak’s SCOTUS Petition, asking for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor in re: widespread corruption of judges and attorney in California.

Among those named in the Petition: Bet Tzedek (The Los Angeles “House of Justice”) and its current and former presidents Sandor Samuels and David Pasternak, also – Allan Rothenberg, USDC Judge Manuel Real… Also Kim Wardlaw. and DC Judges. Ron Branson’s complaint is attached as an Exhibit vs Judge Manuel Real, as well as Propublica investigation of misconduct.

Sandor Samuels, David Pasternak, and Bet Tzedek are RICO ACT defendants in the original Complaint, and they feature prominently also in the Writ (see pages 36,62-63,8,95,101-106,161,253,261).
Bet Tzedek, its current president Sandor Samuels, and its former president David Pasternak also feature in numerous other complaints alleging racketeering.

Cache Creek Casino: Traffic, crime, but oh the money

Cache Creek Casino has brought some prosperity to the region, but the grand jury noted the negatives in its report. By ERIN TRACY / Daily Democrat 07/09/2010

The Cache Creek Casino Resort attracted patrons who fueled the economy, which led to improved emergency services, but ultimately traffic congestion, noise, and crime beyond remediation, according to a 2009-10 Yolo County grand jury report.

The grand jury, which released its report last week, found better communication between Yolo County and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, as well as stronger oversight of tribal mitigation dollars, would likely improve the situation.
It’s hard to deny the economic impact of the 414,110 square-foot facility, which is the county’s largest employer. The tribe annually awards $200 million in vendor contracts, $40 million in payments to the county and state, and $3 million in donations to local civic organizations, the report stated.
The casino’s annual earnings, which go to YDWN members, are kept confidential by the sovereign nation but the grand jury estimated the reservation is home to fewer than 25 members and their children.
“These individuals are the direct and highly-compensated beneficiaries of the profits from the casino,” the report states.
Representatives of the Tribe declined to be interviewed or answer written questions submitted by the grand jury, citing sovereignty rights. Representatives also did not respond to inquires about the report before deadline.

Three-Card-Monte: John Keker, Elliot Peters, Jan Little, Matt Werdegar, Jon Streeter, Chris Young. Hoping to conceal the identity and past actions of Chris Young , Keker & Van Nest removed Chris Young’s attorney profile from its website. Only after YR managed to unearth Young’s identity and only after YR filed an ethics complaint against John Keker, Jon Streeter, and Chris Young in connection with the attempt to defraud the public by concealing Young’s association with Keker & Van Nest, Young’s attorney profile has been restored to the firm’s site. See story HERE

John Keker, Jon Streeter, District Attorney of Yolo County Jeff Reisig, Twice Rico defendant Jeannine English. Hoping to retaliate against Yolo County’s YR and to otherwise sabotage his inquiry into CaliforniaALL, subsequent to the removal of Chris Young’s attorney profile from Keker & Van Nest website — and allegedly acting in their capacity as members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors — Jon Streeter, Jeannine English, Gwen Moore, Dennis Mangers, Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn, as well as others conspired to press false criminal charges against YR with the District Attorney of Yolo County. See story HERE

IMAGES AND NARRATIVES — NOT PART OF ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Increased road use

Perhaps the biggest complaint among residents in the Capay Valley is the increase in traffic along Highway 16. Saturdays are the busiest day for travel, with more than 13,000 travelers heading to the casino, the report stated, which is a 69 percent increase between 2002 and 2006.
All casino feeder roads meet capacity limits established by the state and county and studies conducted for the 2030 General Plan and by the citizens group, Capay Valley Vision, expect traffic on the roads will exceed capacity by 2013.
In a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding between the tribe and county, YDWN promised to implement a shuttle service to mitigate traffic issues. The tribe agreed to pay the county to construct a park and rides facility for patrons and employees, and make the use of its service mandatory for workers. Neither the service nor the policy has been implemented and only 18 percent of employees currently use public transportation, according to the report.
The influx of casino visitors yielded a doubling of Sheriff’s deputies in the area, but the majority of casino related crimes continue to increase. According to the report, between 2002 and 2006 DUI arrests increased 1,050 percent, assaults and weapons arrests increased 2,900 percent and Felony Burglary increased 900 percent.
How the cash is divided

The sheriff’s department has received the lion’s share of mitigation funding to county department, with $3.46 million since 2002. Despite this majority funding, the county estimates its law enforcement related workload — comprised of efforts from the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney and Public Defender’s office — is under-funded by about $600,000.
In total, the tribe has paid $32.9 million to the county: $10.6 million has gone to specific departments, $15.5 million to the general fund, $6.4 million to community residents and specified projects along the Highway 16 corridor, and $.4 million to reserves. The department allocations also include $1.2 million for negotiations and arbitration over the tribes proposed 2008 expansion, which was abandoned in October 2009.

The distribution and oversight of those funds for community projects were called into question by the Yolo County grand jury.
The Advisory Committee on Tribal Matters was established by the Board of Supervisors to recommend applications for tribal mitigation. The grand jury found questionable spending and conflicts of interest among its nine members.
At least two of the board members voted on proposals either because they, or their spouse, “held a leadership role in a recipient organization.”
The Board of Supervisors also took recommendations that limited funding to residents between Interstate 505 and the casino, precluding mitigation for many other towns along the Highway 16 corridor, including Woodland. The majority, 38 percent, of the funds went to Esparto and the were increasingly used for economic and community development rather than mitigation like road repair.
According to the report, the committee’s board minutes reflect that its members, “inaccurately believe ACTM funds are theirs to control … ignoring other county priorities or other casino-related mitigation needs outside the valley.”
County Tribe Coordinator Christopher Lee said, “The county is taking the findings of the grand jury seriously and will respond the them in full and we will have more information at that time.”

In an almost unprecedented turn of events and somewhat ironically, a local official in the State of California who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offenses is now accused of criminal conduct.

Shown above is Mr. Jeff Reisig — an alleged “accomplice” to both a criminal and civil conspiracy who cooperated, jointly and severally, in the commission of two or more RICO activities (image: courtesy photo)

Court documents filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that the highly controversial District Attorney of Yolo County Jeff Reisig is accused of violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

RICO is a federal law that authorizes a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be held civilly liable for the crimes that they ordered others to commit or which they assisted in committing.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar Daniel Dydzak, alleges that Jeff Reisig and his deputies/investigators engaged in an “unlawful search and seizure” and that Mr. Reisig and State Bar of California employee Tom Layton (who according to sources is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira) shared with third parties materials obtained during the search.

The suit further alleges that Reisig conspired to participate in a RICO enterprise, as well as participated in the commission of two or more racketeering activities acting as “accomplice.”

Bruce Naliboff:

* The Leslie Brodie Report urges the readers to exercise caution and not jump to conclusions regarding misconduct by anyone.

A big red flag has been reluctantly raised over Yolo County District Attorney Chief Investigator, Bruce David Naliboff.

The rapidly expanding multi-prong civil inquiry, conducted by Yolo County’s YR, views Naliboff — an Ex-Lieutenant of UC Davis Police Department — as someone who may potentially have a played a greater role than had been perceived up to now.

Yolo County District Attorney Chief Investigator Bruce Naliboff and Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig — an alleged “accomplice” to both a criminal and civil conspiracy who cooperated, jointly and severally, in the commission of two or more RICO activities according to court documents filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (image:courtesy Daily Democrat)

YR maintains that one aspect of the inquiry into CaliforniaALL / University of California involves 4 subparts:

In connection with Sub-Part #4, special attention is being paid to the examination of fraud on the court, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of justice, and related irregularities.

Per YR, Sub-Part #4 is being carefully reviewed because it involves “Public Corruption,” which poses a fundamental threat to our way of life. Such wrongdoing impacts everything from how well our community is protected to verdicts handed down in courts, as well as the quality of governmental services. This, YR maintains, can take a significant toll on the American way of life.

How would you like to have her as the judge hearing your case like she is mine? I can tell you first hand she has no clue on family law and has no right to sit on the bench. She can judge others while she herself is being judged?

In reply to “It was revealed today that a former president of the State Bar of California and a U.S. federal judge are accused of conspiring to violate the constitutional rights of a California-based consumer activist.

In her currently-pending litigation, influential consumer activist Erin Baldwin accuses Holly Fujie and U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee of failing to disclose their close personal relationship to her, both separately and independent of one other.

These claims arose when Baldwin, a plaintiff, named Fujie as defendant in a federal court action which was assigned to the courtroom of United States District Court for the Central District of California, Hon. Judge Dolly Gee.

The claim of improprieties, published first by TLR, stems from recently-discovered evidence showing that both Fujie and Gee are members of the federal bar association’s board of directors, and are otherwise heavily involved in promoting each other in various APIA-only entities.

Previously, in a motion filed with the court, Baldwin already questioned Judge Dolly Gee’s impartiality, alleging that Judge Gee was appointed to the bench through the efforts of Holly Fujie — who serves as chairperson of a committee which recommends the appointment of federal judges to California Senator Diane Feinstein.

Baldwin has also pointed fingers at another member of said committee — Holly Fujie’s fellow confederate from Bet Tzedek, Eric George.

A former partner of Los Angeles-based Buchalter Nemer — who California Governor Jerry Brown appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench under questionable circumstances involving his cousin, former California Public Utility Commissioner Geoff Brown — is accused in federal court of committing myriad financial crimes and acts of fraud.

Documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that Holly Fujie of Los Angeles allegedly engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of money laundering, mail and bank fraud, as well as conversion of funds.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak, also names as a defendant Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles and Eric George — the son of the controversial former chief justice of California, Ronald George.

Both Holly Fujie and Eric George were directors of Bet Tzedek, an entity which obtained millions of dollars from the various trusts funds maintained and operated by the State Bar of California, as well as funds from the California Bar Foundation, where Holly Fujie presently serves as the vice-president.

Both the State Bar of California and the California Bar Foundation are under the direct control of the California Supreme Court.

The various legal trust funds maintained by the State Bar of California are overseen by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission where, coincidentally, Holly Fujie also served as director.

Heading the commission is David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers, another lawyer who is a director of Bet Tzedek, and Bonnie Rubin of 1st Century Bank — a bank owned by former president of the State Bar of California Alan Rothenberg. Coincidentally, Eric George is part owner of 1st Century Bank.

Dydzak alleges in his lawsuits that part of the millions originated from the State Bar of California and its foundation headed to Bet Tzedek were embezzled by the various actors and were siphoned to off shore bank accounts.

Bet Tzedek is headed by CEO Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — who according to Dydzak was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.

According to confidential sources familiar with the situation, Dydzak filed the suit in Washington DC, because he is extremely concerned that given the caliber of the defendants and the fact that they are in control of the justice system in California, they will seek to injure him in various ways, including in seeking to somehow derail the suit.

According to these sources, Tom Layton, investigator from the State Bar of California who is well connected with Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, in the past paid a visit to Dydzak’s neighborhood, and sought to convince his neighbors to falsely accuse Dydzak of various acts of misconduct, including providing improper and unlawful legal counsel.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance establishing a task force on issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) elders; LGBT Supervisors Scott Wiener, David Campos and Christine Olague sponsored the bill. The task force will address housing, legal equity, research and demographics, social services and inclusion of elders within the community. The Board selects the 15 task-force members in September, and they will have 18 months to investigate the issues and report back with their recommendations.

This is a big deal. The task force will report directly to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board is primed to act. Wiener wrote in a recent newsletter, “It is important that the city ensure that our aging LGBT population, the same people who built the modern LGBT community, has access to housing, healthcare and other key needs.”

Following a packed hearing on LGBT elder issues last January, the Supervisors expressed their determination to follow through on task-force recommendations. “We don’t want to start a task force just for the sake of it,” Olague told the Bay Area Reporter, a San Francisco LGBT newspaper. “Where legislation is needed, we are ready to introduce it,” added Campos in the same article. Issues affecting LGBT elders of color will be front and center. A community meeting on July 26, Setting the Agenda: A Community Meeting about Issues facing LGBT Seniors of Color, collected testimony from LGBT elders of color and service providers.

Housing, Social Services and Legal Issues

The task force has a big job ahead in the areas of housing, social services and legal protections.

Housing is a key issue in San Francisco—a city with soaring rents, scarce affordable units and a dearth of rentals accessible to people with disabilities. These factors are forcing some LGBT elders to move out of the city, a trend coinciding with the out-migration of African Americans of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

“For many LGBT seniors, San Francisco was a place they could feel free and be among other LGBT people for the first time. Many speak of their experiences of isolation before moving to San Francisco as young adults and are now fearful of being priced out of the city they’ve called home for decades,” says Michelle Alcedo, director of programs at Openhouse, a Bay Area nonprofit serving LGBT elders’ housing and other needs.

For LGBT elders who lack connection to biological family members and whose “family members of choice” (friends, partners, lovers) are facing medical challenges, social services like those provided by Area Agencies on Aging, senior centers and home-based care can mean the difference between independence and institutionalization. California laws forbid discrimination, but how well are they being enforced? People older than 50 will soon comprise the majority of people with HIV nationwide; new policies and training are needed to ensure services are available.

“The city is in a state of preparation as awareness and interest in the topic increases,” says Rick Appleby of the Institute on Aging and the San Francisco LGBT Community Partnership. “But there is much left to do.”
Enforcing old laws and crafting necessary new laws are top priorities. Many LGBT elders have not married or registered for domestic partnership. How can these families protect themselves from discrimination? How can we better protect LGBT elders from abuse—financial and physical—and how can local law enforcement, city and state agencies help? Are there better ways to assure compliance with laws at the state and federal levels mandating nondiscrimination in benefits, long-term care and Area Agencies on Aging, among other services?

“LGBT elders’ families face discrimination and harassment in a variety of contexts. We need to look at all of these circumstances and see what new laws and policies we can propose to remedy them,” says Bill Ambrunn, a Bay Area–based attorney and longtime LGBT activist.

Darrell Steinberg, as part of CaliforniaALL’s Advisory Council, see below:

Mr. Dennis Mangers (image: courtesy photo)

GGodfather Dennis Mangers of Carmichael, California is a retired senior adviser to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who made the decision to appoint Dennis Mangers as member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors in September of 2010, please see @:

Dennis Mangers, as co-conspirator in a scheme to file false criminal charges against Yolo County-based Rabbi, see below:

I. INTRODUCTION

Sara M. Granda v State Bar of California (2009 cv 02015)

In May 2009, Sara Granda graduated from U.C. Davis School of Law and, like most of her peers, hoped to sit for the July 2009 bar exam.

California’s Department of Rehabilitation paid the $600 bar exam fee with a check, and Granda was assured that she was properly registered.

Ms. Sara Granda. It is easy to imagine Sara Granda in a courtroom, questioning witnesses, challenging the opposition, and fighting for justice with the force of her large personality. A ventilator, which she needs to breathe, would hang from the back of her wheelchair. An assistant would help her flip through files, since she cannot move her hands or arms. When she approaches the bench, Ms. Granda would maneuver her chair using her tongue. “So much of what happens in the courtroom is theater,” says Ms. Granda, 29, who has lived out her own drama since she became paralyzed from the neck down at age 17. “I’m not sure how much time I will spend in court as an attorney. But I know I could do it.” (Photo and Narrative Courtesy of www.alldeaf.com)

However, the State Bar of California’s Office of Admission, headed by Ms. Gayle Murphy, never processed Granda’s application because the Department of Rehabilitation paid the $600 fee with a check, rather than a credit card The State Bar of California did not relent, and neither did Granda.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Courtesy CNN)

Local and national media expressed outrage after the situation gained publicity as a result of statements by Governor Schwarzenegger, who publicly stated: “It is outrageous that someone who has overcome so much in life is penalized by a bureaucratic error that prevents her from taking the bar exam. Government should work for the people, not against them and I’m calling on the state bar to allow Sara Granda to take next week’s test. Sara is a fighter and I am with her all the way.”

Mr. Robert A. Hawley, California State Bar Deputy Executive Director and an adjunct ethics professor at McGeorge School of Law, stated to the Sacramento Bee: “It’s a high-tech process, and people need to maneuver it successfully, and we can’t be in the business of helping any one person out with it.” Hawley continued: “That takes us down a path that ends up in a place we don’t want to be. How do you then choose which ones to help and which you don’t?”

“I worked very, very hard for every cent,” Granda stated to the local media. “So for everything to come together in the end and for it to just kind of fall through on such a minor, minor detail.”

True to her spirit, Granda filed an action in federal court seeking an order directing the State Bar of California to allow her to take the fast-approaching bar exam.

Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe. In the above, Mr Wagstaffe offers his students legal counsel on how to avoid a traffic ticket. Wagstaffe urged the students to deceive law enforcement personnel. He stated: “Do what I do, put a CHP magazine in your car, so they think you are one of them.”

The case was assigned to the courtroom of Judge Morrison England of CaliforniaALL. Judge England is the husband of California ALL board member Torie Flournoy-England who, together with State Bar Executive Director Judy Johnson and Patricia Lee also served on CaliforniaALL’s advisory council.

After Judge Morrison England quickly filed for summary dissolution in Sacramento County Superior Court, and after Judge England and Torie Flournoy wed, and after Torie Flournoy-England was appointed to serve as a member of CaliforniaALL’s board of directors, and while CaliforniaALL was in existence — a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, in which the State Bar of California was named as the sole defendant. Serving on CaliforniaALL’s board of directors of CaliforniaALL (which was in a partnership relationship with the State Bar of California) was Torie Flournoy-England. State Bar of California Executive Director Judy Johnson, State Bar employee Patricia Lee, Kamala Harris, CPUC’s Michael Peevey, CPUC’s Tim Simon, as well as Judge England were part of CaliforniaALL’s Advisory Council. The above photo, which was published on the cover of a local magazine in Sacramento, notes that the Englands wed in May 2008. (image: courtesy photo)

Making an appearance and vigorously contending that the federal court had no jurisdiction over the State Bar of California were State Bar of California emloyees, Larry Yee, Rachel Grunberg, and Mark Torres-Gil of the State Bar office of General Counsel, the same office that drafted the partnership agreement between CaliforniaALL and the State Bar of California, as well as attorneys from the law offices of Kerr & Wagstaffe.

II. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL’S DISHONEST JOURNALISM

In the midst of a public relations crisis arising from the mistreatment of the Sara Granda by the State Bar of California, an article was published in the California Bar Journal. The article was published on July 27, 2009, and was written by Diane Curtis.

As the reader will soon observe, this article is imbued with inaccurate information and is otherwise dishonest.

Soon after U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England dismissed the federal complaint filed by Granda against the State Bar, a Sacramento attorney, Stewart Katz, volunteered to help Granda, and did so by filing a writ of preemptive mandate against the State Bar of California.

The emergency writ was filed on July 27, 2009 and was served electronically on the State Bar. (See below.)

Richard Zanassi, an attorney employed by the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel, filed an opposition in response to the writ. However, due to the wide media attention focusing on the case, the opposition was styled as a request for guidance by the court.

Thus, the article written by Diane Curtis and published in the California Bar Journal is dishonest as it misleads readers into believing that the State Bar, on its own accord, approached the California Supreme Court of its own volition, as an act of altruism and due to concern for Ms. Granda. Clearly, this was not the case.

In addition, one must wonder why Diane Curtis did not mention the fact that Granda, through Stewart Katz, filed the writ for mandamus.

As is made clear by its order, the Supreme Court decided the matter by granting the writ, and not by granting the State Bar’s purported request for guidance.

In lieu of submitting a complaint form, I submit this letter and enclosed materials as a formal complaint against the above-named attorneys for grave misconduct that took place in handling matters relating to applicant Sara Granda and the case of Granda v. State Bar of California.

As will be shown, the above parties, together and individually, engaged in egregious misconduct by conspiring and failing to disclose to the plaintiff the existence of a close relationship between the State Bar of California, CaliforniaALL, State Bar Executive Director Judy Johnson,Patricia Lee, and the judge who presided over a case (Hon. Morrison C. England) in which the State Bar of California was named as the sole defendant.

Furthermore, misconduct in the form of misrepresentations to the court took place regarding the current state of the law; further misconduct resulted from the discrimination against against the plaintiff based on her disability, and the unwillingness to comply with the ADA by affording the plaintiff reasonable accommodations. In addition, and adding insult to injury, the State Bar of California used the California Bar Journal as a tool to further injure and harass Granda by publishing an incomplete and inaccurate article which asserted that the State Bar had sought the advice of the California Supreme Court in determining how to resolve Granda’s claims. The article failed to mention that, in actuality, Granda had filed an action with the California Supreme Court for a preemptive writ and a writ of mandamus, such that the article misled readers regarding the actual circumstances surrounding Granda’s claims.

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

The Honorable Judge Morrison C. England is a United States District Court judge for the Eastern District of California who sits in Sacramento. Prior to assuming the role of federal judge, he served as a judge with the Sacramento County Superior Court. Judge England is a graduate of McGeorge School of Law, also located in Sacramento.

In approximately 2005, as part of his community involvement and extra-judicial activities, Judge England became involved in programs initiated by Elizabeth Parker, dean of McGeorge, and Sarah Redfield, a visiting professor from New Hampshire, relating to the promotion of diversity within the legal profession. Ruthe Catolico Ashley, an assistant dean at the career office at McGeorge School of Law who later assumed a position as a Diversity Officer at CalPERS, was also involved in these activities.

The diversity initiatives instigated by McGeorge were both local and national in scope. The local program in Sacramento was entitled “PacificPathways.” The program to promote diversity on a national level became known as “Wingspread,” which evolved into a series, including Wingspread – Blackboard, Bench, and Bar and Wingspread – Delivered and Deliverable, and the like. Torie L. Flournoy, a school principal from Sacramento, was also involved in these programs at the local level.

Because Ruthe Ashley also served on the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California and Sarah Redfield served on the State Bar’s Council on Fairness and Access, the parties from Sacramento (namely, Parker, Ahley, Flournoy, Redfield and Judge England) became acquainted with individuals from the State Bar of California who were involved in matters relating to diversity, including Executive Director Judy Johnson, State Bar employee Patricia Lee, and Buchalter Nemer’s Holly Fujie.

As such, it was common to observe the same participant names at various diversity-related events taking place around the country. For example, over a 3 day weekend in Monterrey on October 5-7, 2006, part of the Wingspread program ran concurrently with the State Bar of California’s annual convention. Some of the attendees included Judy Johnson, Holly Fujie, Patricia Lee, Ruthe Ashley, Torie L. Flournoy, Hon. Morrison C. England, Dean Elizabeth Parker, and Sarah Redfield. (See attachment titled “Wingspread VI.”) This event, Wingspread — Blackboard Bench and Bar, was organized by Sarah Redfield. Similarly, in June 2007, and also part of the “Wingspread” series, a summit was held in Honolulu, Hawaii at which Dean Elizabeth Parker, Hon. Morrison C. England, Sarah Redfield and Torie L. Flournoy were all in attendance. (See attachment titled “UH Manoh Law School.”)

In approximately 2007, Ruthe Ashley and Munger Tolles & Olson’s Jeffrey Bleich served as Vice President and President of the California State Bar, respectively. During that time frame, an idea was formulated to replicate an existing entity that would also absorb large sums of money from utility companies, and which would be used to allegedly promote diversity.

The original entity, the California Consumer Protection Foundation (CCPF), was secretly controlled for years by State Bar Executive Director Judy Johnson. Fines and settlements from proceedings before the CPUC and other cy pres funds of approximately $30 million dollars were funneled to CCPF, primarily from legal and administrative proceedings. Unlike the funds funneled to CCPF via cy pres funds or fines imposed by the CPUC, the funds flowing to the new entity would come from utility companies’ voluntary donations after they were urged by the CPUC and others to donate in order to further diversity.

As such, Peter Arth (Chief of Staff to then-President of the CPUC, Michael Peevey) invited Ruthe Ashley to a restaurant in San Francisco. As a result of the meeting, a new entity known as CaliforniaALL was formed as a Section 501(c)(3) charitable entity that would collect funds to theoretically be used to invest in promoting diversity. CaliforniaALL, which came into existence in 2008 and was abruptly dissolved in 2010, was considered to have been in a partnership relationship with the State Bar of California. (See Attachment titled “Memo from Patricia Lee to BOG.”) In addition, the partnership stipulation between the State Bar and CaliforniaAll provided that the Board of Governors would appoint two of CaliforniaALL’s members to the Board of Directors.

Executive Director of the State Bar of California Judy Johnson, Patricia Lee, and Judge Morrison England were members of CaliforniaALL’s “Advisory Council” (see Attachment titled “CaliforniaALL December 2008 Newsletter”), affording Judy Johnson and Judge England numerous opportunities to meet and collude or, at a minimum, to create such an appearance.

The transfer of $780,000 from Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL was never acknowledged by any of CaliforniaALL’s publications. Similarly, it was never mentioned in the California Bar Journal or the NewsRoom of Cal Bar Foundation, where all other grants were heavily reported.

It is my position that the transfer of funds was never mentioned because it resulted from a conspiracy by Ruthe Ashley, Holly Fujie, Patricia Lee, and Leslie Hatamiya (all, incidentally, Asian-Americans who are very active in the promotion of diversity) to quietly shift the $780,000, some of which would later be misappropriated and used for personal gain and kickbacks. Indeed, once the funds reached CaliforniaALL, some of it was misappropriated. In order to cover-up the misappropriation, false and inaccurate statements were submitted to the IRS by CaliforniaALL and Ruthe Ashley. For example, CaliforniaALL, which was housed pro bono at the Sacramento Office of DLA Piper, falsely claimed in IRS filings that it had paid approximately $16,000 in occupancy fees. Additional financial improprieties also exist which cannot be disclosed due to the fact that the State Bar is the wrongdoer and, ironically, is the entity to which I am required to submit this complaint for processing.

It is worth noting that the California Bar Foundation is part and parcel of the State Bar of California, despite claims to the contrary and the contention that it is only affiliated with the State Bar. The fact of the matter is that the State Bar’s Board of Governors appoints all Foundation board members, including the president, and that the Executive Director of the California Bar Foundation reports directly to the Board of Governors and needs the Board’s approval to change any bylaws, for example.

In the meantime – after Judge England filed for summary dissolution in the Sacramento Superior Court, and after Judge England and Torie L. Flournoy wed, and after Torie Flournoy-England was appointed to serve as a member of CaliforniaALL’s board of directors, and while CaliforniaALL was still in existence – a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, in which the State Bar of California was named as the sole defendant.

The action was filed by plaintiff Sara Granda and was titled Sara Granda v. the State Bar of California (Case Number 2:09-cv-02015- MCE; see attachment titled “Complaint by Plaintiff Sara Granda”). The matter was adjudicated by Judge England, who promptly dismissed it. Neither Judge England, the defendant, Judy Johnson, or defense counsel Lawrence Yee, Mark Torres-Gil, or Rachel Grunberg disclosed to Granda the State Bar’s ongoing relationship with CaliforniaALL, to wit:

1. CaliforniaALL and the defendant (State Bar of California) are business partners.
2. Judge England and the Executive Director of the State Bar of California (Ms. Judy Johnson) are members of CaliforniaALL’s advisory council.
3. Torie Flournoy-England, the spouse of Judge England, is a board member of CaliforniaALL, an entity that is a partner of the State Bar.
4. The unusual sub rosa transfer of $780,000 from defendant to CaliforniaALL.

By failing to make the disclosures mandated by these facts, the above-named attorneys committed misconduct, irrespective of the actual merit of Granda’s case or its outcome. As such, each must be disciplined for his/her wrongful conduct. Those attorneys are Judy Johnson, Lawrence Yee, Mark Torres-Gil, Rachel Grunberg, and Holly Fujie.

Fujie, who participated in all the proceedings concerning CaliforniaALL (including, strangely, causing the ex post facto appointment of Peter Arth to the Council of Access and Fairness to give them a chance to meet and collude), was also a member of the Board of Governors’ Operation Committee and was briefed regarding Granda’s case. In addition, she was aware that Judge England was presiding over the case and that he and his wife were part of CaliforniaALL. In addition, Fujie served as the president of the State Bar of California and as a member of both the Board of Governors and Operations Committee, and was briefed on the matter; in fact, she authorized the expenditure of money to pay as legal fees to oppose the suit before Judge England. In addition Ms. Fujie participated in multiple diversity-related events at which Judge England and his wife Torie Flournoy-England were present; one such even took place on January 27, 2009, when DLA Piper’s Gilles Attia and the Office of Assembly-member Mike Davis co-hosted a reception honoring California ALL at the Tsakopoulos Galleria in Sacramento. Despite of all the above, Fujie –instead of speaking up concerning the obvious conflict regarding Judge England — kept quiet and looked the other way.

Even though the outcome of the Granda matter is irrelevant to a determination of the misconduct described above, the following paragraphs are included to provide further background and to rebut any allegation that the relationship between the Englands and the defendant caused no prejudice to plaintiff Sara Granda, or that the failure to provide fair administration of justice was otherwise harmless.

The fact of the matter is that the plaintiff Granda was severely prejudiced by the misconduct.

Granda, a 2009 graduate of U.C. Davis School of Law, intended to sit for the July 2009 bar exam. The recent graduate, a quadriplegic who can only move her head and fingers, arranged for the California Department of Rehabilitation to pay the examination fee of $600, which it did via check. However, the State Bar stated that it only accepts payments made via credit card, and would not allow Granda to sit for the fast-approaching bar examination. Plaintiff sensed unfairness and, like many recent law school graduates before her who approached federal court, she asked the federal court to award her both monetary and equitable relief in her lawsuit, which claimed that defendant State Bar of California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The State Bar of California, which was represented by Michael von Loewenfeldt of Kerr & Wagstaffe, as well as Lawrence Yee, Mark Gil-Torres and Rachel Grunberg (State Bar in-house attorneys), asserted that the State Bar was immune pursuant to the 11th Amendment. (See attachment titled “Defendant’s Opposition.”) In its filing and opposition, defendant mostly cited as authority cases adjudicated by district courts around the country, as there is no clear authority addressing the interactions between the ADA and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Cases which held otherwise were not referenced by defendant, including Stoddard v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners and many other cases which held that, in fact, the ADA abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Misled, at least in part, by the argument advanced by defendant State Bar, Judge England promptly dismissed the case without giving Granda the chance to amend or plead around the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity by, for example, naming Judy Johnson as a defendant in her individual capacity. In addition, Granda’s claim for monetary relief was completely ignored by the judge, and was never ruled upon.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the above-named attorneys engaged in egregious misconduct. The fact that they are part of the State Bar, an entity that should hold itself as a beacon of high ethical standards, coupled with Ms. Granda’s special circumstances, mandate and call for severe discipline.

Ms. Sarah E. Redfield is a tenured law professor at the UNH School of Law. She is an expert in the area of education, education jurisprudence, and matters relating to diversity in the legal profession.

Events surrounding Redfield, as shown below, appear to be imbued with fraud and deceit, and it appears her role was to create a subterfuge to justify the existence of CaliforniaALL. Since CaliforniaALL’s main achievement was the purported creation of a “Saturday Academy of Law” at UC Irvine (“SALUCI” or “UCISAL”), Ms. Redfield pretended to have engaged in Requests for Proposals (“RFP”), as well as falsely claiming that she “launched” SALUCI. She gave very little, if anything, in return for the $157,763 she was paid. In fact, she took credit for the extremely hard work of others.

As circumstances presented themselves, particularly with the election of former NBA player Kevin Johnson as the mayor of Sacramento, an idea surfaced that McGeorge (and other law schools in their respective communities) would create their own supplies of qualified minority students by actively engaging the community of potential future students as early as junior high school. Activities would include mentoring, speaker series, field trips, on-site visits to the law schools, Saturday law classes, and the like.

Thus, with visiting Professor Redfield, various programs came about, such as Wingspread P20 Consortium. At McGeorge, a local program known as the “Pacific Pathways” was created by Professor Redfield with help from Twin Rivers Unified School District employee, Torie Flournoy.

Also employed at McGeorge as Assistant Dean for Career Services was Vice President of the State Bar of California, Ms. Ruthe Catolico Ashley, as well as State Bar of California Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Robert Hawley. Ashley and Redfield were also involved with diversity-related matters within the State Bar of California as part of its council on access and fairness, and as the head of a working group referred to as “Education Pipeline, State Bar of California.”

Shortly, thereafter, Ashley left McGeorge to work at CalPERS as a “Diversity Officer” for External Affairs. Subsequenty, CPUC General Counsel Peter Arth invited Ashley and Redfield to dinner, whereupon the idea for CaliforniaALL (initially known as Ca AAL) was memorialized on a paper napkin in approximately July 2007.

In mid 2008, CaliforniaALL was ready to rock and roll. It had just obtained Section 501(C)(3) approval, Ruthe Catolico Ashley was hired as a CEO, a sub rosa transfer of $780,000 had been received from the State Bar of California Foundation (AKA Cal Bar Foundation), and close to another million dollars from utility companies, allegedly, poured in.

According to Professor Redfield’s CV, between 2008 and 2009 she “launched” CaliforniaALL, participated in RFP, and “launched” the Saturday Academy of Law at U. C. Irvine.

Similarly, CaliforniaALL’s own publication indicates that with CaliforniaALL’s grant funds, U.C. Irvine developed and implemented the Saturday Academy of Law, and that by 2009 CaliforniaALL’s mission was visibly at work through the program. See below.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Instead, as most transactions involving CaliforniaALL, the California Bar Foundation and the State Bar of California, it is imbued with fraud and egregious acts dishonesty and deception.

Specifically, the Saturday Academy of Law has been in existence for many years, and is part of the University of California Irvine’s Center for Educational Partnerships (CFEP), which has many programs to benefit the community, such as “UCI Saturdays with Sciences,” “Saturday Academy in Mathematics,” and the like.

For example, as part of a field trip to law firms, the photo below was taken in 2007 when the UCISAL group visited the law offices of Allen Matkins. (See below.) We have intentionally blurred the photo to maintain the students’ privacy. Seated on the right is Allen Matkins managing partner Robert Hamilton. On the far right is Karina Hamilton, a former Allen Matkins associate, wife of Robert Hamilton, and the former Director of Saturday Academy of Law at U. C. Irvine.

“Allen Matkins joined the Orange County Diversity Task Force, a collaborative effort of professionals from top Orange County law firms and businesses that are committed to achieving cultural diversity in the legal profession. As part of this effort, on April 6, 2010, Allen Matkins hosted an office visit and luncheon for the inaugural class of the University of California — Irvine Saturday Academy of Law program (“SAL”).”

Unfortunately, again, this is not the case. Instead, as most transactions involving CaliforniaALL, the California Bar Foundation and the State Bar of California, it is imbued with fraud and egregious acts dishonesty and deception.

Specifically, the Saturday Academy of Law has been in existence for many years, and is part of the University of California Irvine’s Center for Educational Partnerships (CFEP), which has many programs to benefit the community, such as “UCI Saturdays with Sciences,” “Saturday Academy in Mathematics,” and the like.

In fact, metadata from Allen Matkins’ own photos reveals the photos below were taken on January 24, 2007, and not on April 2, 2010 as Allen Matkins (who’s managing partner is Bob Hamilton — husband of UC Irvine’s Karina Hamilton) falsely alleges.

The metadata results were obtained by examining the following links at www.findexif.com :

As matters presently stand, it appears that in 2008 Morrison & Foerster attorneys James Brosnahan (self-proclaimed “mastermind behind the Democratic Party.), Tony West (Barack Obama’s Chair of California Finance Committee), Chris Young (“Obama for America” Northern California Deputy Finance Director) and Annette Carnegie (former director with the California Bar Foundation) in conjunction with Kamala Harris (Co-Chair, Obama for America ; member of CaliforniaALL) , Jeffrey Bleich (president of the State Bar of California, director with the California Bar Foundation, founding member and Chair of Barack Obama’s National Finance Committee) executed a sophisticated financial scheme to misuse all or part of the “hush-hush” $780,000.00 originating from the California Bar Foundation by improperly transferring the money to Barack Obama’s coffers via a separate foundation created ad hoc by Susan Mac Cormac of Morrison & Foerster known as CaliforniaALL.

Other then collecting close to $2 million directly from utility companies (including the “hush-hush” transfer of $774,247, comprised of one installment of $5000 and another contribution of $769,247 from the Foundation which was never mentioned in the Foundation’s “newsroom” or by any other of its publications such as the California Bar Journal or by any of the newsletters and alerts published by CaliforniaALL), CaliforniaALL appears to have been be a sham, phantom entity from its inception in 2008 to the day it began to slowly be dissolved in approximately 2009, subsequent to the election of Barack Obama as president of the U.S. Its only alleged achievement was providing some money for the creation of the Saturday Academy of Law at UC Irvine (“SALUCI”) in approximately 2008-2009. Here too vast and intense suspicious circumstances exist as the funds from CaliforniaALL actually went to the UC Irvine Foundation, where the present executive director of the State Bar of California (Senator Joe Dunn) serves as a member of the audit committee, and it turns out that the SALUCI was actually already created in 2005 and was fully operational before CaliforniaALL arrived on the scene. In addition, some records seem to indicate that Verizon Wireless funneled the money directly to SALUCI , while CaliforniaALL took the credit.

Initially, due to circumstances which cannot be viewed as mere coincidence, I was under the impression that funds have been misappropriated from the California Bar Foundation by Voice of OC — specifically, by its founders 1) Joe Dunn and 2) Martha Escutia (both former state senators who were overseeing utility companies and the CPUC and investigating the California energy crisis), and 3) Thomas Girardi and 4) James Brosnahan who were litigating cases involving the California energy crisis on opposite sides, and/or Geoffrey Brown, former Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission and 2007 Director of the Foundation during the time of the suspicious transfer of funds to CaliforniaALL (an entity of which CPUC’s Peter Arth was one of the main initiators).

However futile, I asked the State Bar of California to investigate the matter. While the Foundation alleges that the source of the (relatively) large sum of $774,247 which it transferred to CaliforniaALL was from four utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Edison International, and Verizon Wireless — as reflected in the Foundation’s 2008 Annual Report and tax return showing contributions to CaliforniaALL), there is no corresponding entry in any Foundation tax return (for tax years 2007 or 2008), nor any mention in the Annual Report, showing the initial receipt of those funds.

Nevertheless, I continued with the inquiry as large pieces of the puzzle were missing, and in fact stated so in a letter seeking information about one of the actor’s employment history. However, within the past several weeks, I believe that I finally managed to put all the pieces together.

These facts raised suspicions that money has been misappropriated from the Foundation, and places those individuals who controlled the Foundation (Jeffrey Bleich, Annette Carnegie, Douglas Winthrop, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Geoffrey Brown, and others), who “legally” created CaliforniaALL (James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, Susan Mac Cormac, and Annette Carnegie of the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster), who controlled the money (Ophelia Basgal of PG&E; Douglas Winthrop, attorney for PG&E; Jeffrey Bleich, attorney for Verizon Wireless; and Edison (client of James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, and Annette Carnegie), who controlled CaliforniaALL (Ruthe Ashley, Ophelia Basgal), and who controlled the finances for the Obama for America’s 2008 campaign (Jeffrey Bleich, Tony West, and Chris Young) in a very awkward position.

In my opinion, and based on the information I’ve discovered, it appears that funds were misappropriated and/or laundered through the California Bar Foundation by various individuals through the misuse of CaliforniaALL. Although other potential explanations certainly exist, based on these individuals’ involvement in the “Obama for America” 2008 presidential campaign (as discussed below), one likely possibility is that the funds were unlawfully misdirected to that campaign.

Laura N. Chick (born 1944) is an Americanpolitician. She is a longtime California political figure who focused her public service career on fighting for greater transparency and accountability in government. Most recently she served as California’s Inspector General overseeing the state’s spending of $85 billion of Federal Recovery Act funding. Chick was appointed to the newly created position by GovernorArnold Schwarzenegger in April 2009 and the office was terminated by Governor Jerry Brown in December 2010. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

In 2001, Chick was elected Los Angeles City Controller, becoming the first woman to hold citywide office in Los Angeles. As Controller, she was the Chief Auditor and Chief Accountant of the City working to ensure its fiscal health. In her nearly eight years in this office, Chick released over 170 audits and reports exposing a wide range of problems throughout city government. As the taxpayers’ watchdog she rooted out waste and fraud and championed innovation and new ideas to challenge the status quo.

In 2006, Los Angeles Magazine named Laura Chick one of the most influential people in the City. The Los Angeles Daily News editorialized, “…as City Controller, she’s often been downtown’s lone champion of good government.” A Los Angeles Business Journal feature said, “Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick has emerged as a central voice in the ongoing debate over how the City handles its contracts.” In a May, 2004 feature article, Los Angeles Magazine states, “Where others couch and evade, she is Ms. Blunt.”

One of her last audits to be released as City Controller exposed a backlog of thousands of untested DNA rape kits at the Los Angeles Police Department. Chick’s report brought a national spotlight to an intolerable situation. This resulted in City officials finally making the problem a priority. Her work won her the prestigious ProPublica Prize for Investigative Governance. Chick left the City Controller’s position due to term limits in 2009.

Her experience includes managing a family-owned retail business. Laura first entered elected office in 1993 when she defeated a 16-year incumbent for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. Seven months after taking office her district was devastated by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Chick went into action working around the clock, an ever present figure in the toppled neighborhoods. Laura used the crisis as an opportunity to rebuild in a smarter and better way, creating what is now a thriving redevelopment zone with shops, cafes and a legitimate theater converted from an X-rated movie house.

California Inspector General

Shortly after President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Laura Chick to act as Inspector General, to provide oversight to the proper use of the federal funds.[3][4] Chick resigned her City Controller post before the end of her term to accept the state position. [5]

“Laura’s impressive track record as a watchdog and public servant makes her uniquely qualified to ensure this funding is used as it was intended-to create jobs and help our state through this difficult economic time,” said Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Sacramento Bee heralded Chick’s arrival in the Capitol with the headline, “Misuse stimulus cash – you’ll answer to her”.

Chick energetically took up the state’s challenge of overseeing the massive expenditure of American Recovery funds though her Office was given very little resources. With a handful of auditors borrowed from other state departments she scrutinized local agencies across the state. Chick released nearly 30 reports uncovering misspent stimulus funds totaling millions. Her relentless style elicited critics inside State Government as it had with insiders in Los Angeles City Hall.

Newly reelected Governor Jerry Brown eliminated the Office of the Inspector General in December 2010. [6]

Other Board Service

Laura Chick was appointed to the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006.[7] She served until the Autumn of 2011.[8] There have been blog reports indicating that an active investigation of Chick and others was underway.[9]

Chick also serves on the State Board of Directors as Member at Large for California Women Lead, a women’s nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. [10]

Personal life

Before entering elective office at the age of 49, Chick had already been a stay-at-home mom, manager of a family-owned retail business and social worker. She received her Bachelor’s Degree in History from UCLA and a Master’s in Social Work from University of Southern California.[11] Laura Chick was married to Robert Chick, an insurance executive who served on many local public agency governing boards and commissions over the years.[12][13]

Lauren Redfern, a former female Basalt High School gym teacher who had been charged with sexual assault on a student, was sentenced, but faces no prison time.

Lauren Redfern, 26, was sentenced Tuesday.

Redfern, 26, was arrested after she was caught by the school’s athletic director having sex with a student in the teacher’s restroom. At the time Redfern was charged with two felony counts of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust with a pattern of sexual abuse, a class 3 felony.

Sacramento-based lobbyist Jeannine English — who served as a “public member” of the State Bar of California Board of Governors since 2006 — is no longer part of the board, TLR has learned.

English is married to Howard Dickstein – a widely-known but controversial figure within California’s Tribal Gambling industry.

Recently, both Dickstein and English were named as defendants in two separate RICO suits — advanced by Spire Law Group and Dan Dydzak.

Dickstein , who is no stranger to litigation, has been previously named a defendant in a suit advanced by his client, members of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nations (formerly known as the Ramsey Band of Wintun Indians), which owns and operates the Cache Creek Casino in Brooks, California, an unincorporated community in Yolo County.

In that action, the plaintiffs — who were represented by Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and legal ethics expert Michael Boli — alleged that Dickstein engaged in myriad fraudulent conduct, concealment, conversion (i.e. a non-criminal term referring to the act of theft), breaches of fiduciary duties, misrepresentations, and unjustly enriching himself with tribal money by defrauding the tribe of millions of dollars over more than a decade.

J STREET PAC: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein; Controversial Indian gambling attorney RICO defendant Howard Dickstein — member of both Anti-Israel’s J Street PAC and J Street Gang of Greed, alongside Jerry Brown ; Dickstein’s wife, State Bar of California Board of Governors Public Member RICO defendant Jeannine English – Dickstein of AARP.

STATION CASINOS: Richard Blum — Regent of the University of California and husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein; Controversial Indian gambling attorney RICO defendant Howard Dickstein — member of both anti-Israel J Street PAC and J Street Gang of Greed, alongside Jerry Brown ; Dickstein’s wife, State Bar of California Board of Governors Public Member RICO Defendant Jeannine English – Dickstein of AARP.

Rumsey Band Rancheria vs. Howard Dickstein In a civil action filed against Attorney Howard Dickstein, spouse of State Bar of California BOG member Jeannine English, it was alleged Dickstein engaged in “a course of dealing that involved breaches of trust and violations of duties of the most basic, and, indeed, sacred kind.” Including, but not limited to, using the client’s plane for personal trips to the south of France, Big Sur and Grand Prix events in Monte Carlo and Montreal for which he owes the client $1.2 million. In statements to the media, Howard Dickstein referred to the allegations as a “pack of lies,” while disparaging his client. Dickstein also stated that he plans to fight the suit and “fight hard.” Appearing on behalf of defendant Dickstein was Elliot Peters of Keker & Van Nest.

Four Loyola Law School alumni are poised to play pivotal roles in the impending litigation involving economic-loss, personal-injury and wrongful-death claims from reported instances of unintended acceleration in certain Toyota cars. On the defense side, Toyota recently hired Tom Nolan ’75 to serve as lead counsel in economic-loss cases. Arguing on behalf of the consumers will be three alumni: Tom Girardi ’64, Tony Rackauckas ’71 and Mark P. Robinson, Jr. ’71. Nolan, of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, will help navigate the economic-loss cases in federal and state court. He represented MGA Entertainment in its high-profile litigation with Mattel over copyright infringement in the Bratz line of dolls. MGA was ultimately awarded $309 million in damages and fees. Nolan’s economic-loss case in front of Los Angele County Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr is set to begin in September 2012. Loyola’s Civil Justice Program honored Nolan as a Champion of Justice in 2007.

Robinson, a partner with Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. in Newport Beach, CA, was named a co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the portion of the class-action case accusing the carmaker of negligence causing wrongful death and injuries when U.S. District Judge James Selna consolidated claims in May 2010. Robinson is no stranger to auto-defect litigation. He litigated the landmark 1978 Ford Pinto fire case that ushered in the modern era of auto-defect litigation. “The time has now come to focus on the victims, the people who have experienced sudden unintended litigation,” Robinson told the Associated Press.

Rackaukas, who has been the Orange County district attorney since 1998, has pursued consumer causes against large corporations as the county’s top prosecutor. Early in his career, he prosecuted large oil companies for contaminating drinking water. “The job of the D.A., in my view, is to do everything that I can to enhance the safety of the community and enhance the community’s feeling that they’re as safe as we can help them be,” he has said. Girard, of Girardi | Keese, has litigating a wide variety of product-liability cases. He obtained a $4.85 billion settlement in litigation against Merck pharmaceutical company for personal injuries suffered by consumers who used Vioxx medication. Loyola’s Civil Justice Program honored Girardi as a Champion of Justice in 2005 and bestowed the same honor on Robinson in 2007.

After Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan were honored in 2005, and Edith Matthai who was honored in 2006; on Friday, September 28, 2007 a tribute to Champions of Justice dinner was presented by The Civil Justice Program Loyola Law School to honor Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps and Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson. See source @: http://www.lls.edu/academics/centersprograms/civiljusticeprogram/symposiaande…

————

Monday, September 12, 2011

The State Bar Board of Governors has selected Angela Davis of Los Angeles and Mark P. Robinson Jr. of Newport Beach to join the Judicial Council of California, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Friday.

The attorneys were appointed to three-year terms, which will commence Thursday.

It’s not always clear to law firms trying to implement diversity programs how to reachout to the next generation in the community in a meaningful way, when many young people in thatcommunity have had little positive experience with the law – and their path to highereducation is filled with challenges. Bringing students into the firm for a pizza lunchdiscussion with attorneys is a popular event that can open the eyes of low-income minority kids. Mentoring programs and internships are profoundly important. But sometimes, a special event with a historical figure can be transformational.

Filmmaker Abby Ginzberg is a documentarian of social justice heroes. But it’s notjust the filming of people like Thelton Henderson (“Soul of Justice: TheltonHenderson’s American Journey”) or Arthur Kinoy (“Doing Justice: the Life and Trialsof Arthur Kinoy”). Ginzberg plans the timing of her documentaries so that the subjectcan tour with the film to communities across the country once they are completed. Fordiversity-oriented law firms, this can be an opportunity to bring youngsters face to facewith a historical figure who is eager to answer their questions and inspire them topursue their dreams.

A poignant example of this took place last June with the Orange County screening ofthe documentary, “Cruz Reynoso: Sowing the Seeds of Justice,” which was attended by50 high school students who participate in the UC Irvine Saturday Academy of Law, orSAL. SAL hosts a series of Saturday morning classes for Santa Ana Unified SchoolDistrict ninth graders, focusing on three main objectives for the students: improvingtheir writing and public speaking skills and helping them learn about the law as aprofession. Two hundred college-bound students have gone through this program,which was launched in 2009.

Our Diversity Committee’s Community Outreach subcommittee organized the eventand co-hosted it with the Orange County Diversity Task Force. The Orange County BarAssociation, Orange County Hispanic Bar Association, Orange County Asian AmericanBar Association, Mexican American Bar Foundation, Public Law Center, and theOrange County Bar Foundation all participated. Judge Frances Munoz, the firstLatina appointed to the State Bar, was there, as was UC Irvine vice chancellor ManuelGomez. Altogether about 150 people attended, including Ginzberg and Justice Reynoso.While there are plenty of people creating films that touch on diversity, Ginzberg is aninspired partner for an event of this kind. An attorney who practiced for 10 years, she’sdocumented successes of programs for at-risk and under served youth, AmeriCorpsmembers, and those who have been at the front lines of civil rights and grass rootsjustice issues.

She strongly believes that these screenings are far from opportunities to preach to thechoir. “The choir is a handful of people like myself devoted to social justice issues,” sheemphasizes. “The people who come to these screenings are people who haven’t thoughtabout any of this. They see a Hispanic surname in the title of the film and have enoughpride in their community that they want to see who this person is. They leave feelinginspired.” But, she adds, this film is not simply for Hispanics. “I’m looking for a diverseaudience for every film I do. This film has done a really good job of reaching beyond thechoir to people who have never heard of him.And, just in case you haven’t heard of him, Reynoso was born into a large Spanish-speaking farm worker family in Brea. Despite his father’s insistence that he forego hiseducation and work to help support the family, he stood his ground and attendedPomona College and then UC Berkeley Law School, graduating in 1958. From there hebecame the first Latino director of California Rural Legal Assistance and then one of thefirst Latino law professors in the United States, when he joined the faculty of theUniversity of New Mexico Law School. Years later he was appointed to the stateSupreme Court by Gov. Jerry Brown and later lost his seat in a divisive recall electionthat centered around the death penalty. Reynoso returned to private practice and alsojoined the faculty of the UCLA School of Law until 2001. In 2000, he served as vicechair on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which addressed the voting rights abusesin the 2000 election in Florida. Capping his career was receiving the nation’s highestcivilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, by President Bill Clinton. Today, heteaches law at UC Davis Law School.

“You take someone whose life has traversed really interesting parts of history andthrough the prism of biography you can teach history,” explains Ginzberg. “Andthrough the lens of history, teach a little biography. They’re mutually reinforcingefforts. My job is to preserve their legacy and help create role models.”She believes there’s a good reason to select older subjects. “They’re not going to bearound forever,” she notes. “If you pick your people carefully – and I do – that ability of an older person to inspire young people is pretty strong. Cruz manifests respect fromyoung people and has a liveliness of spirit that kids can respond to. And many of thesekids have never met anyone as successful as him. Cruz has been particularly open andwilling to do this. He’s humble and he’s accessible. It’s been an honor to go out withhim.”

Ginzberg has gone out with Cruz to many community screenings. At a recentAlameda County Office of Education event celebrating “History Day” at a local highschool, the question came up about re-establishing civil discourse when there are somany polarized fights going on. Ginzberg says that Reynoso and others of hisgeneration talk to young people about the importance of negotiating. “He told thesestudents that it doesn’t mean you can’t take your cause to the streets, but you don’tmake it impossible to communicate with the people you’re opposing. That’s a messagethese kids need to hear from someone who fought big battles in his time.”The documentary, of course, is important as an introduction to someone like JusticeReynoso. But the power of the event seems to be cemented in what happens afterwards.For the SAL students, it was a profoundly inspirational connection.

“The students were absolutely captivated,” recalls Karina Hamilton, SAL’s foundingdirector and now a volunteer with UC Irvine Mentors. “They learned about Californiahistory and the civil rights movement through Justice Reynoso. And he was soengaging. He answered all their questions, which ranged all over the place, includingthe new Arizona law and immigration, his background, and what kind of student hewas.”

On October 29, 2012, plaintiff Daniel David Dydzak filed a motion to disqualify the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge. Dkt. No. 12.

The motion was randomly assigned to this Court for ruling. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff brings his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(4), which require disqualification, inter alia, where a judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

As an initial matter, it appears this action was dismissed with prejudice on October 29, 2012. Dkt. No. 11. In light of the fact that no action is pending, it appears that the motion to recuse is moot. Plaintiff’s motion fails on this ground alone. In addition, even if this Court construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion to reconsider the dismissal with prejudice and to disqualify Judge Real, plaintiff’s motion is without merit. Judge Real did nothing more than enforce the unambiguous vexatious litigant order issued by Judge Coughenour in Case No. 11-cv-5560, Dkt. No. 35.1

The order clearly barred plaintiff from initiating any further litigation in this or any other federal court based on his disbarment. Id. at 10. Moreover, that Judge Real is a defendant in a separate matter brought by plaintiff is not—without more—sufficient grounds to disqualify him in other matters.

In order to prevail, plaintiff must set forth facts that show that a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Here, plaintiff has asserted no facts that give rise to a question regarding Judge Real’s impartiality. 1 The Honorable Judge John C. Coughenour, District Court Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation of the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit.

There is simply no showing that Judge Real acted improperly in this case by enforcing the order of Judge Coughenour. In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to disqualify is hereby DENIED.

Embattled San Francisco-based Keker & Van Nest and named partner John Keker are under scrutiny, yet again.

According to various knowledgeable sources, the controversy surrounding Kekers stems from an announcement by which the firm declared unequivocally its intention to disregard and otherwise violate myriad local, state, and federal laws prohibiting any form of race discrimination, as well as state and local laws prohibiting any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Specifically, earlier this year Keker & Van Nest announced that it was “launching the Keker & Van Nest Diversity Scholarship to benefit diverse law students.” (emphasis added) Source@: http://www.kvn.com/careers/diversity/default

Keker & Van Nest further stated that “Scholarship applicants must be current first-year or second-year law students who are students of color, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community (emphasis added) Source @: http://www.kvn.com/careers/diversity/Diversity-Scholarship

(L) Matt Werdegar of Keker & Van Nest who participated in the scheme to hide Chris Young’s association with his firm from the public. He is the son of California Supreme Court Associate-Justice Kathryn Werdegar and David Werdegar (R), former CEO of of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging. Strangely, while Justice Werdegar recused herself in a suit against the late Richard Goldman due to major contributions by Goldman to Institute on Aging, she did not recuse herself in many other cases involving other major contributors. Once the scheme was exposed on The Leslie Brodie Report, David Werdegar abruptly quit his CEO position. (Image:courtesy photo)

The suit was advanced by community activist Daniel Dydzak of Marina Del Rey alleges that defendants — who allegedly run the San Francisco law firm as a criminal racketeering enterprise — engaged in predicate acts of a pattern of racketeering through and by means of obstruction of justice and myriad acts of fraud.

The suit further contends that named partner John Keker participated and was well aware of the surreptitious and conspiratorial alliances and unlawful agreements.

The action seeks monetary and equitable remedies.

Matt Werdegar is the son of the former CEO of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging David Werdegar who abruptly quit his position earlier this year amid media reports of alleged financial improprieties.

Subsequent to Werdegar’s departure, the IOA appointed J. Thomas Briody, MHSc as the organization’s new President and CEO.

In a separate suit, Dydzak’s avers that Califorrnia Supreme Court Justice Kay Werdegar failed to inform interested parties of the fact that entities such as brokerhouse Charles Schwab and law firm Morrison & Foerster, for example, are major donors to the IOA, totaling tens of thousands of dollars.

Dydzak further alleges that he sustained legal injury based on his representation of a client against Charles Schwab — specifically, a former paramour of Charles Schwab co-founder Hugo Quackenbush — and subsequent retaliation by various entities that sought to silence him (and his client), including the now-defunct law firm of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, which had previously represented Charles Schwab.

According to Dydzak, once his allegations of retaliation by Howard Rice and others were presented for adjudication before Justice Werdegar, she had an absolute duty to either obtain a waiver from Dydzak or recuse herself because of Charles Schwab’s financial donations to IOA; he claims that she did neither.

Dydzak further alleges that Justice Werdegar’s failure to take these steps stemmed from a civil conspiracy entered into by the various parties (and specifically Charles Schwab and David Werdegar), by which Justice Werdegar would rule against Dydzak, ipso facto preventing him from further developing the case against Charles Schwab, because further actions by him would have exposed Charles Schwab’s various alleged unlawful activities; at the same time, ruling against Dydzak enriched her husband, David Werdegar, financially — and, by extension, enriched her as well.

Attorneys are encouraged to support and contribute to bar-related entities that are not funded by State Bar annual fees. The list below summarizes the goals of those entities and provides a link for additional information. Contributions are tax deductible to the extent provided by law.

The Justice Gap Fund implements AB 2301 (2006), which authorizes the State Bar to solicit contributions from its members to support legal services for low-income Californians.

Legal services for the indigent are a critical component of the justice system, helping to improve trust and confidence in the court system and working to ensure justice for vulnerable individuals who cannot represent themselves.

The Justice Gap Fund is one of three sources of funding for the State Bar’s Legal Services Trust Fund Program, which makes grants to nonprofit organizations that provide free civil legal services to low-income Californians.

DonateBack to top

Bar Relations & Elimination of Bias Fund

The Elimination of Bias Fund maintains programs that address concerns of bias in the legal profession. In addition to funding various outreach and education activities, the Elimination of Bias Fund supports the work of the Council on Access & Fairness, which acts in an advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees to enhance diversity opportunities and advancement in the legal profession. Initiatives to educate students about the law and legal career opportunities are also a focus of the council.

The Office of Bar Relations Outreach provides program development and support services to more than 235 voluntary bar associations throughout the state).

Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent provided by law.

DonateBack to top

Legislative Activities FundLAF

The State Bar’s Office of Governmental Affairs (OGA) spearheads the Bar’s legislative efforts to ensure the protection of the public in matters relating to the practice of law, increase access to and improve the delivery of legal services to the people of California and improve the administration of justice in the state.

The OGA engages in many projects and activities designed to help achieve these objectives. These include:

Tracking bills and advocating legislation sponsored or supported by the Board of Trustees and against legislation that is contrary to the goals and mission of the State Bar Producing publications on legislative matters (including Sacramento Scene newsletter) Providing members of the legislature with consumer education and protection materials developed by the State Bar Coordinating efforts to offer the legal expertise of the Sections and Standing Committees as a resource to the legislature

Donations to the Legislative Activities Fund ensure that the interests of State Bar members are protected in Sacramento and are tax-deductible to the extent provided by law.

The California Bar Foundation assists young people in developing an interest in the law and in going to law school on scholarships. A donation will:

Provide scholarships for worthy law students committed to public interest careers Print and distribute the popular consumer guides Kids & the Law, When You Become 18 and Seniors & the Law Ensure that grants will continue to fund similar services in the future, especially for young citizens who take an interest in the law Continue the expansion of many law-related programs that benefit a broad cross-section of children, students, adults and seniors throughout California

Donations of $250 or more receive special recognition in the Leadership Circle. In addition, contributions are tax-deductible to the extent provided by law. For more information, visit the Foundation’s Web site.

The mission of the California Supreme Court Historical Society is twofold: preserving the rich legal history of our state and broadening public understanding of, and appreciation for, the contributions of courts and attorneys to California’s history.

The Society works to carry out its mission in several different ways. For example, during the past two years the Society:

Commissioned a University of California historian to prepare an oral history of recently-retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George Partnered with the Northern District of California Historical Society to present “Chief Justice David Terry and Federalism,” a program featuring seven judges from both state and federal courts in dramatic readings from the life of David Terry, a colorful and controversial man who served as Chief Justice of California in the turbulent 1850s Co-sponsored a program on the history and future of the citizen initiative in California Co-sponsored a program at the University of Southern California (USC) School of Law celebrating the contributions of African American appellate court justices in California Conducted two writing competitions, open to students in law schools and graduate schools, and published the winning essays in California Legal History, the Society’s highly regarded annual journal

The Society receives no financial support from the State Bar or government at any level. It relies for nearly all of its revenue on donations from individual lawyers and judges. These donations are tax-deductible to the extent provided by law.

The independent Conference of California Bar Associations (CCBA) provides California attorneys with an effective way to make positive changes to California public policy and statutory law through the development, debate, sponsorship and lobbying of legislation.

Each year delegates from local and specialty bars throughout the state develop resolutions proposing changes in state statutes and the rules of court and debate those resolutions (often more than 100) at the CCBA’s annual conference. Many of those resolutions are then introduced in legislation in the California Legislature and lobbied towards enactment with the help and guidance of the CCBA’s legislative representative. In 2010, 13 CCBA-sponsored resolutions were signed into law.

The independent CCBA is not part of The State Bar of California and receives no bar funding. Contributions are not tax-deductible as charitable contributions, but the portion not allocated for legislative lobbying expenses may be deducted as an ordinary and necessary business expense.

It may take more than a journalistic inquiry by The Leslie Brodie Report to explain the mystery of why a suit advanced against David Werdegar is not part of the public records maintained by the San Diego Superior Court.

(L) Matt Werdegar of Keker & Van Nest and David Werdegar (R), deposed former CEO of of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging (image: courtesy photo)

As was reported earlier, an Orange County Superior Court judge has ordered a change of venue in a case pending against David Werdegar of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging (IOA).

The suit — adavnaced by community activist Daniel Dydzak of Marina Del Rey — has been transfered to neighboring San Diego County Superior Court.

Werdegar, who resides in Ross, is the former Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Aging and husband of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (aka Kay Mickle).

Prior to the commencement of the action, David Werdegar abruptly quit his position with IOA. The resignation, which occurred earlier this year, followed media reports of alleged improprities involving himself, his wife, and his son Matthew Werdegar – a partner at the litigation botique Keker & Van Nest, headed by contreversial litigator John Keker.

Subsequent to Werdegar’s departure, the IOA appointed J. Thomas Briody, MHSc as the organization’s new President and CEO.

Dydzak’s suit avers that Justice Werdegar failed to inform interested parties of the fact that entities such as brokerhouse Charles Schwab and law firm Morrison & Foerster, for example, are major donors to the IOA, totaling tens of thousands of dollars.

Dydzak further alleges that he sustained legal injury based on his representation of a client against Charles Schwab — specifically, a former paramour of Charles Schwab co-founder Hugo Quackenbush — and subsequent retaliation by various entities that sought to silence him (and his client), including the now-defunct law firm of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, which had previously represented Charles Schwab.

According to Dydzak, once his allegations of retaliation by Howard Rice and others were presented for adjudication before Justice Werdegar, she had an absolute duty to either obtain a waiver from Dydzak or recuse herself because of Charles Schwab’s financial donations to IOA; he claims that she did neither.

Dydzak further alleges that Justice Werdegar’s failure to take these steps stemmed from a civil conspiracy entered into by the various parties (and specifically Charles Schwab and David Werdegar), by which Justice Werdegar would rule against Dydzak, ipso facto preventing him from further developing the case against Charles Schwab, because further actions by him would have exposed Charles Schwab’s various alleged unlawful activities; at the same time, ruling against Dydzak enriched her husband, David Werdegar, financially — and, by extension, enriched her as well.

As noted above, shortly before Dydzak filed his lawsuit, David Werdegar abruptly resigned from his post as the CEO of IOA.

The Institute on Aging is a San Francisco-based senior care facility. It started out as part of Mount Zion Hospital (a client of Howard Rice) , and metamorphosed into its current form.

CETF has been established as a non-profit corporation pursuant to orders from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in approving the mergers of SBC-AT&T and Verizon-MCI in 2005. As a condition of approval of the mergers, AT&T and Verizon are required to contribute to CETF a total of $60 million over 5 years for the purpose of achieving ubiquitous access to broadband and advanced services in California, particularly in underserved communities, through the use of emerging technologies by 2010. AT&T will contribute $9 million per year and Verizon will contribute $3 million per year. The CPUC also directed that at least $5 million should be used for telemedicine projects, according to its website www.cetfund.org

Rick Cohen, who has served as chair of Los Angeles-based Buchalter Nemer, will retire at the end of the year.

Mr. Rick Cohen (image: courtesy)

According to Buchalter, Rick Cohen focused his practice “on a wide range of corporate, partnership and general securities matters, with particular emphasis on securities issues that address problems and challenges facing investment advisors.

Mr. Cohen served as Special Counsel to California State Controller Kenneth Cory and as the Chief Executive Officer of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which was then the eighth largest pension fund in the United States, with assets in excess of $12 billion.

Mr. Cohen received his B.A. magna cum laude in 1974 from Pomona College, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He earned his J.D. magna cum laude and Order of the Coif in 1977 from the University of California School of Law at Los Angeles.”

In TLR previously published comment stating that University of California’s Regent Richard Blum and wife — Senator Dianne Feinstein — are under scrutiny in connection with:UCI Foundation’s Joe Dunn and Erwin Chemerinsky (both of Voice of OC — initially housed at home of Kinde Durkee; entity which the IRS apparently exempted from full compliance of its rules and regulations );UC Berkeley Foundation’s Gibor Basri and Freada Klein Kapor (both of sham entity CaliforniaALL -used to launder money from utility companies to OBAMA FOR AMERICA, allegedly); Carry Zellerbach of CaliforniaALL; University of California Scripps’ operative Donna Lucas and Martha Fay Africa (alleged paramour of Morrison & Foerster’s James Brosnahan — mastermind behind and legal counsel of CaliforniaALL), we were remiss in not mentioning husband and wife — Howard Dickstein and Jeannine English.

Both Dickstein and English are named defendants in two separate RICO suits advanced by The Spire Law Group and Dan Dydzak.

The allegations contained in the Spire complaint allude to money laundering by Howard Dickstein and Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street PAC — an anti-Israel entity recently embraced by Dianne Feinstein, subsequent to financial contributions from J Street PAC to Feinstein’s political campaign.

One Carol Watts wrote: “Dydzak’s RICO case filed in DC District court is now pending before Judge Real in the Central District and scheduled for dismissal on Oct 29, 2012. Dydzak v Dunn was voluntarily dismissed by Dydzak after Def’s filed motions to have him deemed vexatious in the state court.”

Watts commnet comes on the heel of report that former partner of Los Angeles-based Buchalter Nemer — who California Governor Jerry Brown appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench under questionable circumstances involving his cousin, former California Public Utility Commissioner Geoff Brown — is accused in federal court of committing myriad financial crimes and acts of fraud.

Documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that Holly Fujie of Los Angeles allegedly engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of money laundering, mail and bank fraud, as well as conversion of funds.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak, also names as a defendant Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles and Eric George — the son of the controversial former chief justice of California, Ronald George.

Both Holly Fujie and Eric George were directors of Bet Tzedek, an entity which obtained millions of dollars from the various trusts funds maintained and operated by the State Bar of California, as well as funds from the California Bar Foundation, where Holly Fujie presently serves as the vice-president.

Both the State Bar of California and the California Bar Foundation are under the direct control of the California Supreme Court.

The various legal trust funds maintained by the State Bar of California are overseen by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission where, coincidently, Holly Fujie also served as director.

Heading the commission is David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers, another lawyer who is a director of Bet Tzedek, and Bonnie Rubin of 1st Century Bank — a bank owned by former president of the State Bar of California Alan Rothenberg. Coincidentally, Eric George is part owner of 1st Century Bank.

Dydzak alleges in his lawsuits that part of the millions originated from the State Bar of California and its foundation headed to Bet Tzedek were embezzled by the various actors and were siphoned to off shore bank accounts.

Bet Tzedek is headed by CEO Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — who according to Dydzak was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.

According to confidential sources familiar with the situation, Dydzak filed the suit in Washington DC, because he is extremely concerned that given the caliber of the defendants and the fact that they are in control of the justice system in California, they will seek to injure him in various ways, including in seeking to somehow derail the suit.

According to these sources, Tom Layton, investigator from the State Bar of California who is well connected with Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, in the past paid a visit to Dydzak’s neighborhood, and sought to convince his neighbors to falsely accuse Dydzak of various acts of misconduct, including providing improper and unlawful legal counsel.

Additionally, the suit also names as defendants Keker & Van Nest and partner Matt Werdegar — who allegedly run the San Francisco law firm as a criminal racketeering enterprise.

The suit contends that named partner John Keker participated and was well aware of the surreptitious and conspiratorial alliances and unlawful agreements.

Matt Werdegar is the son of the former CEO of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging David Werdegar who abruptly quit his position earlier this year amid reports of alleged financial improprieties.

In a separate suit, Dydzak’s averred that California Supreme Court Justice Kay Werdegar failed to inform interested parties of the fact that entities such as brokerhouse Charles Schwab and law firm Morrison & Foerster, for example, are major donors to the IOA, totaling tens of thousands of dollars.

Dydzak further alleges that Justice Werdegar’s failure to take these steps stemmed from a civil conspiracy entered into by the various parties (and specifically Charles Schwab and David Werdegar), by which Justice Werdegar would rule against Dydzak, ipso facto preventing him from further developing the case against Charles Schwab, because further actions by him would have exposed Charles Schwab’s various alleged unlawful activities; at the same time, ruling against Dydzak enriched her husband, David Werdegar, financially — and, by extension, enriched her as well.

The United States filed a fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corp, accusing it of causing taxpayers more than $1 billion of losses by selling thousands of toxic mortgage loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Wednesday’s case, originally brought by a whistleblower, is the U.S. Department of Justice’s first civil fraud lawsuit over mortgage loans sold to the big mortgage financiers, which were bailed out in 2008.

It also compounds the legal problems that Bank of America Chief Executive Brian Moynihan faces over the second-largest U.S. bank’s disastrous 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp, once the nation’s largest mortgage lender.

According to a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, Countrywide in 2007 invented a scheme known as the “Hustle” to speed up processing of residential home loans.

A former partner of Los Angeles-based Bushmaster Nemer — who California Governor Jerry Brown appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench under questionable circumstances involving his cousin, former California Public Utility Commissioner Geoff Brown — is accused in federal court of committing myriad financial crimes and acts of fraud.

Documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that Holly Fujie of Los Angeles allegedly engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of money laundering, mail and bank fraud, as well as conversion of funds.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak, also names as a defendant Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles and Eric George — the son of the controversial former chief justice of California, Ronald George.

Both Holly Fujie and Eric George were directors of Bet Tzedek, an entity which obtained millions of dollars from the various trusts funds maintained and operated by the State Bar of California, as well as funds from the California Bar Foundation, where Holly Fujie presently serves as the vice-president.

Both the State Bar of California and the California Bar Foundation are under the direct control of the California Supreme Court.

The various legal trust funds maintained by the State Bar of California are overseen by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission where, coincidentally, Holly Fujie also served as director.

Heading the commission is David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers, another lawyer who is a director of Bet Tzedek, and Bonnie Rubin of 1st Century Bank — a bank owned by former president of the State Bar of California Alan Rothenberg. Coincidentally, Eric George is part owner of 1st Century Bank.

Dydzak alleges in his lawsuits that part of the millions originated from the State Bar of California and its foundation headed to Bet Tzedek were embezzled by the various actors and were siphoned to off shore bank accounts.

Bet Tzedek is headed by CEO Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — who according to Dydzak was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.

According to confidential sources familiar with the situation, Dydzak filed the suit in Washington DC, because he is extremely concerned that given the caliber of the defendants and the fact that they are in control of the justice system in California, they will seek to injure him in various ways, including in seeking to somehow derail the suit.

According to these sources, Tom Layton, investigator from the State Bar of California who is well connected with Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, in the past paid a visit to Dydzak’s neighborhood, and sought to convince his neighbors to falsely accuse Dydzak of various acts of misconduct, including providing improper and unlawful legal counsel.

As was reported earlier, Det. Rodney Wagner of the Sheriff’s Department stated his view that the department’s six-month investigation turned up evidence of “implied threats” against the actor by Oksana Grigorieva and her lawyers.

He wrote that he found support for three separate extortion charges in Grigorieva’s e-mails to Gibson and in a March 2010 meeting in which her lawyers, Eric George and Sonia Y. Lee, talked with Gibson’s representatives about how disclosure of the tapes and photos would “ruin” his career.

“By discussing the potential damage to Mr. Gibson’s career if the ‘evidence’ were to be released to the public … it was my opinion, that constituted an implied threat,” Wagner wrote.

George, who was Grigorieva’s lead attorney in the negotiations, is the son of the state’s former chief justice and a campaign fundraiser for Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley. He hosted a $500-per-person cocktail party at his Beverly Hills home in August for Cooley’s unsuccessful race for attorney general and donated $6,500 to his campaign. He declined to comment.

Grigorieva’s current attorney, Daniel Horowitz, said Wagner had mistaken bare-knuckles legal negotiations for a crime.

The president of an organization committed to diversity and leadership pipelines in the legal profession has been accused of racketeering.

A civil RICO action filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleges that Ruthe Catolico Ashley, president of Rocklin-based Diversity Matters, engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of money laundering, mail and bank fraud, as well as conversion of funds.

Ashley is the former Chief Diversity Officer for CalPERS and former Assistant Dean for Career and Professional Development at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Prior positions include past president of Legal Services of Northern California, past chair of the Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce , past president of the Asian Bar Association of Sacramento, and past president of The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).

California’s unfair competition law prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.) And under this law, a practice can be prohibited as unfair or deceptive even if not unlawful, and vice versa. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999).) For example, a plaintiff’s allegations that a defendant used incomplete and misleading illustrations to sell universal life insurance policies may be actionable under the unfair competition law absent any claim that such conduct violated any regulation or statute. (Wilner v. Sunset Life Ins. Co., 78 Cal. App. 4th 952 (2000).)

An unlawful business practice can be “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” (Summit Tech., Inc. v. High-Line Med. Instruments Co., 933 F. Supp. 918 (C.D. Cal. 1966) and Wilner, 78 Cal. App. 4th 952.)

According to the Los Angeles Times, Det. Rodney Wagner of the Sheriff’s Department stated his view that the department’s six-month investigation turned up evidence of “implied threats” against the actor by Oksana Grigorieva and her lawyers.

He wrote that he found support for three separate extortion charges in Grigorieva’s e-mails to Gibson and in a March 2010 meeting in which her lawyers, Eric George and Sonia Y. Lee, talked with Gibson’s representatives about how disclosure of the tapes and photos would “ruin” his career.

“By discussing the potential damage to Mr. Gibson’s career if the ‘evidence’ were to be released to the public … it was my opinion, that constituted an implied threat,” Wagner wrote.

George, who was Grigorieva’s lead attorney in the negotiations, is the son of the state’s former chief justice and a campaign fundraiser for Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley. He hosted a $500-per-person cocktail party at his Beverly Hills home in August for Cooley’s unsuccessful race for attorney general and donated $6,500 to his campaign. He declined to comment.

Grigorieva’s current attorney, Daniel Horowitz, said Wagner had mistaken bare-knuckles legal negotiations for a crime.

Eric George — the son of the controversial former chief justice of California, Ronald George, is presently a defendant in a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak. Also named as defendant are Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles and Holly Fujie.

Both Holly Fujie and Eric George were directors of Bet Tzedek, an entity which obtained millions of dollars from the various trusts funds maintained and operated by the State Bar of California, as well as funds from the California Bar Foundation, where Holly Fujie presently serves as the vice-president.

Both the State Bar of California and the California Bar Foundation are under the direct control of the California Supreme Court.

The various legal trust funds maintained by the State Bar of California are overseen by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission where, coincidentally, Holly Fujie also served as director.

Heading the commission is David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers, another lawyer who is a director of Bet Tzedek, and Bonnie Rubin of 1st Century Bank — a bank owned by former president of the State Bar of California Alan Rothenberg. Coincidentally, Eric George is part owner of 1st Century Bank.

Dydzak alleges in his lawsuits that part of the millions originated from the State Bar of California and its foundation headed to Bet Tzedek were embezzled by the various actors and were siphoned to off shore bank accounts.

Bet Tzedek is headed by CEO Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — who according to Dydzak was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.

According to confidential sources familiar with the situation, Dydzak filed the suit in Washington DC, because he is extremely concerned that given the caliber of the defendants and the fact that they are in control of the justice system in California, they will seek to injure him in various ways, including in seeking to somehow derail the suit.

According to these sources, Tom Layton, investigator from the State Bar of California who is well connected with Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, in the past paid a visit to Dydzak’s neighborhood, and sought to convince his neighbors to falsely accuse Dydzak of various acts of misconduct, including providing improper and unlawful legal counsel.

A former partner of Los Angeles-based Buchalter Nemer — who California Governor Jerry Brown appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench under questionable circumstances involving his cousin, former California Public Utility Commissioner Geoff Brown — is accused in federal court of committing myriad financial crimes and acts of fraud.

Documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that Holly Fujie of Los Angeles allegedly engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of money laundering, mail and bank fraud, as well as conversion of funds.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak, also names as a defendant Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles and Eric George — the son of the controversial former chief justice of California, Ronald George.

Both Holly Fujie and Eric George were directors of Bet Tzedek, an entity which obtained millions of dollars from the various trusts funds maintained and operated by the State Bar of California, as well as funds from the California Bar Foundation, where Holly Fujie presently serves as the vice-president.

Both the State Bar of California and the California Bar Foundation are under the direct control of the California Supreme Court.

The various legal trust funds maintained by the State Bar of California are overseen by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission where, coincidentally, Holly Fujie also served as director.

Heading the commission is David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers, another lawyer who is a director of Bet Tzedek, and Bonnie Rubin of 1st Century Bank — a bank owned by former president of the State Bar of California Alan Rothenberg. Coincidentally, Eric George is part owner of 1st Century Bank.

Dydzak alleges in his lawsuits that part of the millions originated from the State Bar of California and its foundation headed to Bet Tzedek were embezzled by the various actors and were siphoned to off shore bank accounts.

Bet Tzedek is headed by CEO Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — who according to Dydzak was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.

According to confidential sources familiar with the situation, Dydzak filed the suit in Washington DC, because he is extremely concerned that given the caliber of the defendants and the fact that they are in control of the justice system in California, they will seek to injure him in various ways, including in seeking to somehow derail the suit.

On June 24, 2012, The Leslie Brodie Report published the following article:

“It now appears that RICO defendants Alan Rothenberg and Eric George (owners of Los Angeles-based 1st Century Bank) will be represented by the law-firm of Abelson & Herron in litigation filed against them and others in Orange County Superior Court.

Abelson & Herron sells itself as “a small firm with big firm attorneys.” Hence, one would expect a minimal level of professionalism and competency from Abelson & Herron and more specifically from “of counsel” Lisa Von Eschen. Not so.

Information obtained by The Leslie Brodie Report points to the following:

Eric George missed his deadline to file an answer to the suit, and only did so after a request for entry of default was submitted.

Additionally, rather then filing a verified answer to the verified complaint, Abelson & Herron filed a general denial alleging, among others, that the plaintiff is actually at fault since he had breached a residential contract with Eric George.

Later — and despite the fact that Eric George appeared in the action by virtue of filing a general denial relating to an imaginary real estate contract between himself and the plaintiff — Lisa Von Eschen still maintained that Eric George would not appear for an upcoming scheduled videotaped deposition because he had not been served with the complaint.

Eric George (son of Ronald George) and Alan Rothenberg, both of whom have strong ties to Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles, stand accused (along with Holly Fujie) of masterminding a scheme by which some of the funds obtained from the California Bar Foundation and the State Bar of California totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars were embezzled.

As previously mentioned, serving along with Holly Fujie on the State Bar of California Legal Services Trust Fund Commission are Bet Tzedek board member David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers and, shockingly, Bonnie Rubin — vice president of 1st Century Bank who sources maintain are also likely to be named as defendants in the suit.”

——————-

Consistent with our principles, the above article was published based on facts which were independently verified based on a standard similar to probable cause / sufficiency of the evidence.

A few weeks ago, the plaintiff, Dan Dydzak, filed a whole new RICO suit in Washington DC naming again almost all of the Orange County defendants. He also named as defendants various other actors who dared oppose his Orange County suit.

Almost all of the defendants (those he originally named in the Orange County suit, and those he managed to pick on his way to Washington DC) are accused of either “conspiring to engage in pattern of racketeering” or “accuring an interest in a criminal enterprise.”

As to the Orange County defendants, ample probable cause exist for The Leslie Brodie Report to offer coverage consistent with our principles. However, as to some of new lucky defendants, we are either unfamiliar with the fact pattern. Or, were unable to extrapolate from the complaint sufficient facts to comfortably support an article accusing an entity or a person of criminal conduct.

One such entity is the law offices of Abelson & Herron and one such person is Lisa Von Eschen, cry of RICO nothwithstanding.

A Yolo County-based Rabbi (“YR”) — a confederate of The Leslie Brodie Network who was recently described in court papers as a man of great principles, ethics, integrity, and spirituality — is mulling ways to assist Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar Dan Dydzak in his quest for justice.

Specifically, in the matter of Daniel David Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye, U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour recently declared Dydzak a vexatious litigant who is PROHIBITED from initiating any further litigation in this or any other federal court alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens based on his disbarment without the prior authorization from the presiding judge of the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California.

Following on the heels of Judge Coughenour’s order, YR stated:

“I would like state unequivocally that I am not behind Mr. Dydzak’s lawsuits — not his first suit filed in Orange County and certainly not the second one.

Mr. Dydzak does not consult with me about how he exercises his affairs, nor do I make any suggestions. In fact, I had to use a credit card to pay to download and view his first suit, and learned of the second suit only by reading Judicial Council Watcher, not from Mr. Dydzak himself.

Personally, I have issues with the fact that Mr. Dydzak has filed these actions, and the claims asserted therein. After he filed the suit in Orange County, I spoke with my various confidential sources in Southern California and was told that Mr. Dydzak is highly competent in legal matters, having practiced under Melvin Belli and as a successful sole practitioner in Beverly Hills for 25 years. I was told that he hoped to obtain a quick settlement after filing the Orange County action, which will be orchestrated by Justice Troter of JAMS. In fact, Mr. Dydzak admits as much in his second lawsuit.

In short, Mr. Dydzak acting to serve his own personal interests, unlike my whistle blowing activities which are consistent with the concepts of truth and justice.

The vexatious litigant order is clearly draconian, and as such, I am considering raising funds which will be used to assist Dydzak in either the posting of bond or hiring an attorney.

I would like to also state unequivocally that the following condition will be imposed:

a) no funds whatsoever will be forwarded directly to Dydzak.

b) since Judge Coughenour’s order only applies to suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens based on his disbarment (and presumably does not apply to the many other RICO defendants in matters unrelated to his disbarment i.e. Bet Tzedek, 1st. Century Bank, etc.), no funds will be used to prosecute those defendants.

c) no funds can be used to prosecute any person/entity who is a resident of Central/Northern California.

Even though his suits are a detriment to me, it is not my place to judge him or his belief that he was the victim of grave injustices,” YR concluded.

We attach an article by reporter Cheryl Miller of The Recorder which highlights remarks the Chief Justice made last weekend. You will see from the article a number of direct quotes from the Chief Justice. We urge you to carefully read this article, and then read it again.

Please share the article with your colleagues. If you know your State Senator or State Assembly Member, we also encourage you to forward the article to that elected official with a personal note from you.

We will comment on only one matter as the rest speaks for itself.

The Chief Justice, in an apparent reference to the Alliance, indicates that she does not understand why our message is different from that of her handpicked Judicial Council. She also indicates that she is unaware of or confused as to our message.

Dydzak, in an almost unprecedented turn of events and somewhat ironically, accused the man who once stated “our justice systems, our courts, are the best things about this country because in other countries, they settle their problems through violence” of conspiring with others to operate the justice system as a criminal racketeering enterprise.

Court documents filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that controversial trial attorney Tom Girardi of Los Angeles-based Girardi & Keese is accused of violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Among the claimed misconduct, the civil suit alleges that in exchange for favorable treatment in court cases, Girardi resorted to the use of payoffs, underwriting social events, and the laundering of money to effect the outcome of court cases “with certain judges and attorneys.”

Tom Girardi of Girardi & Keese. Per the Ninth Circuit, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Subsequent to those findings, the State Bar of California appointed Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk to serve as special prosecutor against Girardi, Lack, and their respective firms. None mentioned that Girardi and Lack are actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. See story here. For additional allegations of misconduct leveled against Girardi, please see here, and here , and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. For the latest on Walter Lack, please see here. (Image: courtesy photo)

RICO is a federal law that authorizes a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be held civilly liable for the crimes that they ordered others to commit or which they assisted in committing.

Girardi (far left) enjoys an authentic dinner, friendship and comradery during an Italian-American Lawyers Association event. The gentleman at the center of the photo is State Bar of California employe Tom Layton who according to sources is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira. (Image:courtesy)

The suit also asserts that other individuals engaged in racketeering activities, including Tom Layton — a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff/Senior State Bar of California investigator, and Alec Chang of Skadden Arps.

A U.S. trial has been set for next fall in a Chevron Corp lawsuit that accuses Ecuadorean residents, their lawyers, and advisers of fraud in obtaining a $19 billion pollution award against the U.S. oil company.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said at a brief hearing on Thursday that the trial would begin on Oct. 15, 2013.

Donziger and the Ecuadoreans deny they acted improperly and argue that Chevron’s claims were brought improperly. In May, Kaplan refused the defendants’ request to toss out Chevron’s fraud and racketeering conspiracy claims, brought under the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The case is Chevron Corp v. Steven Donziger et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 11-0691.

In an almost unprecedented turn of events and somewhat ironically, the man who once stated “our justice systems, our courts, are the best things about this country because in other countries, they settle their problems through violence” is now accused of conspiring with others to operate the justice system as a criminal racketeering enterprise.

Court documents filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that controversial trial attorney Tom Girardi of Los Angeles-based Girardi & Keese is accused of violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Among the claimed misconduct, the civil suit alleges that in exchange for favorable treatment in court cases, Girardi resorted to the use of payoffs, underwriting social events, and the laundering of money to effect the outcome of court cases “with certain judges and attorneys.”

Tom Girardi of Girardi & Keese. Per the Ninth Circuit, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Subsequent to those findings, the State Bar of California appointed Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk to serve as special prosecutor against Girardi, Lack, and their respective firms. None mentioned that Girardi and Lack are actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. See story here. For additional allegations of misconduct leveled against Girardi, please see here, and here , and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. For the latest on Walter Lack, please see here. (Image: courtesy photo)

RICO is a federal law that authorizes a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be held civilly liable for the crimes that they ordered others to commit or which they assisted in committing.

Girardi (far left) enjoys an authentic dinner, friendship and comradery during an Italian-American Lawyers Association event. The gentleman at the center of the photo is State Bar of California employe Tom Layton who according to sources is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira. (Image:courtesy)

The suit also asserts that other individuals engaged in racketeering activities, including Tom Layton — a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff/Senior State Bar of California investigator, and Alec Chang of Skadden Arps.

Former Orange County Senator Mired in New Controversy

A RICO suit naming as defendant (among others) Joseph L. Dunn, a former California State Senator who represented central Orange County, was filed in federal court.

The suit, advanced by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak, alleges that the former senator engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of obstruction of justice, money laundering, and myriad acts of fraud.

The action seeks monetary and equitable remedies.

Dunn, a democrat, was elected to the California State Senate in 1998 and served until 2006. He is the former chief executive of the California Medical Association who together with former Democratic Sen. Martha Escutia established The Senators (Ret.) Firm.

A somewhat controversial figure, Dunn has been embroiled in separate controversies dealing with various not for profit entities, to wit, CaliforniaALL, Voice of OC, and UCI Foundation.

In September of 2009, with the help of attorneys Thomas Girardi (of Girardi & Keese) Jim Brosnahan (of Morrison & Foerster) and Erwin Chemerinsky (of UC Irvine) Joe Dunn and Martha Escutia launched a not-for-profit entity known as “Orange County Nonprofit Investigative News Agency,” which operates an online publication under the name “Voice of OC” (located at www.voiceofoc.org) headed by Norberto Santana and David Washburn.

Slowly but surely, the toxin of bias is being leached out of American culture, if incrementally and by degrees. A Catholic was elected president in 1960, and since then Catholic nominees and candidates have become commonplace.

A Jew was nominated in 2000 for vice president, and was a help to his ticket. In 2004 and 2008 respectively, Joe Lieberman and Rudy Giuliani ran for president, and their names and religions did not become issues. The country’s first black president was elected four years ago by a fairly large margin.

This year, a black woman and a Hispanic were the first choices of many Republican voters for vice president, and children of Hispanic and Indian immigrants are rising Republican stars. Pockets of bias remain, but this country has reached the stage at which no success is beyond the reach of any American for reasons other than personal failings.

But as racism fades, concern over it seems to grow stronger than ever, at least with a clique on the left that longs to hold on to the issue, and works without stopping to keep race alive.

Matt Werdegar is the son of David Werdegar — the former Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Aging and husband of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (aka Kay Mickle).

Prior to the commencement of a prior action, David Werdegar abruptly quit his position with IOA. The resignation, which occurred earlier this year, followed media reports of alleged improprities involving himself, his wife, and his son David .

The suit further contends that named partner John Keker participated and was well aware of the surreptitious and conspiratorial alliances and unlawful agreements.

The action seeks monetary and equitable remedies.

Matt Werdegar is the son of David Werdegar — the former Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Aging and husband of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (aka Kay Mickle).

Prior to the commencement of a prior action, David Werdegar abruptly quit his position with IOA. The resignation, which occurred earlier this year, followed media reports of alleged improprities involving himself, his wife, and his son David .

Subsequent to Werdegar’s departure, the IOA appointed J. Thomas Briody, MHSc as the organization’s new President and CEO.

Dydzak’s prior suit avers that Justice Werdegar failed to inform interested parties of the fact that entities such as brokerhouse Charles Schwab and law firm Morrison & Foerster, for example, are major donors to the IOA, totaling tens of thousands of dollars.

Dydzak further alleges that he sustained legal injury based on his representation of a client against Charles Schwab — specifically, a former paramour of Charles Schwab co-founder Hugo Quackenbush — and subsequent retaliation by various entities that sought to silence him (and his client), including the now-defunct law firm of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, which had previously represented Charles Schwab.

According to Dydzak, once his allegations of retaliation by Howard Rice and others were presented for adjudication before Justice Werdegar, she had an absolute duty to either obtain a waiver from Dydzak or recuse herself because of Charles Schwab’s financial donations to IOA; he claims that she did neither.

Dydzak further alleges that Justice Werdegar’s failure to take these steps stemmed from a civil conspiracy entered into by the various parties (and specifically Charles Schwab and David Werdegar), by which Justice Werdegar would rule against Dydzak, ipso facto preventing him from further developing the case against Charles Schwab, because further actions by him would have exposed Charles Schwab’s various alleged unlawful activities; at the same time, ruling against Dydzak enriched her husband, David Werdegar, financially — and, by extension, enriched her as well.

The John C. Coughenour Best Oral Advocate Award was created in 2007 by family, friends, former law clerks and colleagues of Judge Coughenour to honor his move to senior status on the U.S. District Court and to celebrate his twenty-five years of service on the federal bench. This annual award honors Judge Coughenour’s dedication to improving the quality of trial practice, his commitment to trial lawyering and his many years teaching trial advocacy at the UW School of Law. Source: http://www.law.washington.edu/news/ebriefs/May11/index.html

Jason Sykes, class of 11, won the Best Oral Advocate Ward at the mock trial competition presided over by Judge John C. Coughenour on May 12, 2011. This award was created in 2007 by family, friends, former law clerks and colleagues of Judge Coughenour to honor his move to senior status on the U.S. District Court and to celebrate his twenty-five years of service on the federal bench. This annual award honors Judge Coughenour’s dedication to improving the quality of trial practice, his commitment to trial lawyering and his many years teaching trial advocacy at the UW School of Law. Source@: http://www.law.washington.edu/Photos/Default.aspx?YR=2011&ID=Coughenour#3

Consistent with our commitment to integrity and adherence to the highest level of ethical journalism, and in order to report on both sides of a story, The Leslie Brodie Report had no choice but to report that Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar Dan Dydzak has been declared a “vexatious litigant” earlier this week.

Specifically, in the matter of Daniel David Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye, U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour declared Dydzak a vexatious litigant who is PROHIBITED from initiating any further litigation in this or any other federal court alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens based on his disbarment without the prior authorization from the presiding judge of the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California.

Judge Coughenour — with a reputation of a strict taskmaster who excoriates lawyers who disrespect the judicial process — further ordered Dydzak to provide security in the amount of $5,000 for each defendant against whom he seeks to proceed with Court authorization in the future.

Mr Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe. In the above, Mr Wagstaffe offers his students legal counsel on how to avoid a traffic ticket. Wagstaffe urged the students to deceive law enforcement personnel. He stated: “Do what I do, put a CHP magazine in your car, so they think you are one of them.”

According to the Seattle Times, Judge Coughenour is legendary for his eruptions. He believes the reputation is overblown, but admits he has high standards.

“When lawyers misbehave in my courtroom, I think it is my job to let them know,” Coughenour said. “I think that people who practice in federal courts ought to be very high-caliber lawyers.”

Jeffrey Robinson, a defense attorney at Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, said he has never seen Coughenour blow up at a litigant, only at lawyers who are ill-prepared or long-winded.

Dan Dubitzky, who co-founded Dubitzky and Zarky, said he has occasionally been “atomized” — his word — by Coughenour for erring in his courtroom. Yet he never felt the outbursts were mean-spirited.

“I think he just wanted us to take things as seriously as he did,” said Dubitzky. “He made me a much better lawyer.”

Advisory Board San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

As was reported recently, an Orange County Superior Court judge has ordered a change of venue in a case pending against David Werdegar of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging (IOA).

The suit — advanced by community activist Daniel Dydzak of Marina Del Rey — has been transferred to neighboring San Diego County Superior Court.

Werdegar, who resides in Ross, is the former Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Aging and husband of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (aka Kay Mickle).

Prior to the commencement of the action, David Werdegar abruptly quit his position with IOA. The resignation, which occurred earlier this year, followed media reports of alleged improprieties involving himself, his wife, and his son Matthew Werdegar – a partner at the litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest, headed by controversial litigator John Keker.

Advisory Board San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties

As was reported recently, an Orange County Superior Court judge has ordered a change of venue in a case pending against David Werdegar of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging (IOA).

The suit — advanced by community activist Daniel Dydzak of Marina Del Rey — has been transferred to neighboring San Diego County Superior Court.

Werdegar, who resides in Ross, is the former Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Aging and husband of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (aka Kay Mickle).

Prior to the commencement of the action, David Werdegar abruptly quit his position with IOA. The resignation, which occurred earlier this year, followed media reports of alleged improprieties involving himself, his wife, and his son Matthew Werdegar – a partner at the litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest, headed by controversial litigator John Keker.

Consistent with our commitment to integrity and adherence to the highest level of ethical journalism, and in order to report on both sides of a story, The Leslie Brodie Report has no choice but to now report that Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar Dan Dydzak has been declared a “vexatious litigant.”

Under normal circumstances, a vexatious litigant must obtain leave of the court before filing any new claim.

Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses.

In the federal system, in determining whether a litigant is a “vexatious litigant,” a court would normally apply the five factors set forth in the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). Those factors are: (1) the litigant”s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative suits; (2) the litigant”s motive in pursuing the litigation, for example, whether the litigant had a good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused unnecessary expense to the parties or placed a needless burden on the courts; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties. Source: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insurancelaw/blogs/insurancelawblog/archi…

In California, section 391 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines the qualifications of a vexatious litigant. Even though such status can bar a person from the courthouse, the statute has been held to be constitutional. (See Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP, 40 Cal. 4th 780 (2007); and Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007).)

Under section 391, a vexatious litigant typically is a pro se plaintiff who has (1) lost at least five pro se lawsuits in the preceding seven years, (2) sued the same defendant for the same alleged wrong after losing, (3) repeatedly filed meritless papers, or (4) used frivolous tactical devices or already been declared a vexatious litigant for similar reasons. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b); Wolfe, 486 F.3d at 1124.) Because the statute uses the disjunctive or, the court must separately evaluate each of the four factual scenarios, according to the Daily Journal. Source: http://www.dailyjournal.com/cle.cfm?show=CLEDisplayArticle&qVersionID=290…

Previously, in the matter of Daniel David Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye, Judge John C. Coughenour ordered Mr. Dydzak to SHOW CAUSE (1) why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant, and (2) why he should not be prohibited from initiating any further litigation in this or any other federal court all eging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his disbarment without prior authorization from this Court or the presiding judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In the absence of such a showing, Mr . Dydzak will be declared a vexatious litigant under Local Rule 83-8 and will be required to provide security in the amount of $5,000 for each defendant against whom he seeks to proceed with Court authorization.

According to Dydzak (who publicly commented on Judicial Council Watcher) “matters are being contested appropriately.”

Categories

This story is late in publishing because the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver on the same day it was received because what scant information they did provide was readily available to them. But they dragged out […]

More false promises of tunnels reaching out from jails to courthouses. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we’ve stated many times that ALL tunnel promises are false promises made to win local support of the projects and penciled out upon approval. What we find most disturbing is that Clifford Ham has a track […]

Welcome to 2017! Yeah, we know, a bit of time has passed since we’ve been hyperactive here. We’ve been a bit busy frying other fish. If you consider yourself a progressive, you’ve already read and possibly even recognized our work elsewhere. We will be continuing those projects and check in here as not to neglect […]

Thanks to the sheer incompetence of Judicial Council staff leadership, we’re going to be spending the next ten years nipping at their heels. Last week, the San Francisco trial court ruled that the Jacobs entities maintained their contractors license and that the 22.7 million that the Judicial Council should have been able to recover is […]

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows […]